Slashdot Mirror


Short History of the 21st Century

First Prediction: January l, 2000. People will be ticked off to suddenly realize the Millenium is a year away. Join Sir Arthur Clarke, me, a Princeton plasma physicist and hopefully hordes of geeks and nerds in the first 21st century Slashdot Predict-A-Thon. Your history of the 21st century is as good -- and as welcome -- as anybody else's.

If you read one geeky non-fiction book this year, you might want to make it Sir Arthur C. Clarke's "Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!", crammed with enough ideas, arguments and predictions to keep any techno-head going for months.

Predictions are only a tiny part of this ultra-brilliant collection of essays, whose topics range from 1930's visions of rockets and radar to space flight, quantum physics and sci-fi ruminations.

But Sir Arthur's visions of the 21st century are prescient and succinct. I've listed some of them here, followed by a few of my own (so identified) and one or two from a Princeton physicist and e-mail pal. Throw in your own:

From Sir Arthur Clarke:

2002. The first commercial device that produces clean, safe power by low-temperature nuclear reactions goes on the market. Economic and geopolitical catacylsms follow, and on December 10, for their (controversial, to say the least) discovery of so-called cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.

2004. First (publicly admitted), lab-created, human clone is introduced.

2012. Aerospace planes enter regular commercial service.

2014 Construction begins on the Hilton Orbiter Hotel, built by assembling and converting the giant shuttle tanks that had previously been allowed to fall back to Earth.

2009. A city in a third world country is devastated by the accidental explosion of an A-bomb in its armory [timely given the news from Japan]. After a brief debate in the United Nations, all nuclear weapons are destroyed.

.

2015. An inevitable by-product of the quantum generator is complete control of matter at the atomic level. Thus the ancient dream of alchemy is realized on a commercial scale, often with surprising results. Within a few years, copper and lead cost twice as much as gold - since they are more useful.

2016. All existing currencies are abolished. The megawatt hour becomes the unit of exchange.

2020. Artificial intelligence (AI) reaches the human level. From now on, there are two intelligent species on Earth - one evolving far more rapidly than biology would ever permit. Interstellar probes carrying AI machines are launched toward the nearer stars.

2021. The first humans on the Red Planet encounter unpleasant surprises.

2025. Brain research finally leads to an understanding of the senses and direct inputs become possible, bypassing eyes, ears, skin, etc. The inevitable result is the Braincap, to which the 20th Century's Sony Walkman was a primitive precursor. Anyone wearing a metal helmet fitting tightly over the skull can enter a universe of experience, real or imaginary - and can even merge in real time with other minds.

2040. The universal replicator, based on nanotechnology, is perfected: any object, however complex, can be created given the necessary raw materials and the appropriate information matrix. Diamonds or gourmet meals can be made literally from dirt.

2050. "Escape from utopia." Bored by life in this peaceful and unexciting era, millions decide to use cryonic suspension to emigrate into the future in search of adventure. Vast "hibernacula" are established in the Antarctic at the lunar poles.

2095. The development of a true "space drive" - a propulsion system reacting against the structure of space time - makes the rocket obsolete and permits velocities close to that of light. The first human explorers set off to the nearby star systems that robot probes have already found promising sites for exploration.

While in no way putting myself in Sir Clarke's class, I'll stick my neck out and offer a few of my own predictions.

Digital Democracy.

2020. Electronic democracy is legally mandated in the United States, replacing some of Congress's pre-Net obstructionist, rhetorical and representative elements and functions. Maybe Congress made some sense in a time when people couldn't around or get information quickly, but less and less as America wires up. States and local municipalities re-create Revolutionary-era town meetings online to resolve regional and local issues.

All elections are tabulated digitally. The fractious, fragmented, eternally unresolvable two-party political-media system on display on Washington-based talk shows daily is gradually replaced by online discussions, research and information-sharing and instant voting that actually resolves issues by majority rule. Washington, like Bonn, is re-engineered from a national capitol to a hi-tech enclave.

Americans vote from polls, neighborhood kiosks, offices or homes using their Citizen ID's and passwords. All legislation is discussed and voted on online, before the government takes action. Congress is eventually abolished. Federal regulatory agencies are de-centralized, their vast Washington bureaucracies disassembled, re-located into smaller parts in diverse places.

E-publishing.

Instead of buying dozens of books a year, readers will buy one - it's pages digitally and graphically constructed to display, then delete or return books that are read - and use their digital tablet repeatedly. The e-books will be indistinguishable from the traditional kind. Each will have it's own text style and graphics, bought, borrowed and returned by wireless modem. Writing will become more open and collaborative, writers sharing ideas, research and the writing process with the people who will buy their works.

Digital Justice.

Non-criminal litigation will be resolved online. Lawyers will post briefs and testimony to pre-assigned Websites, where judges will consider misdemeanor and civil cases and render their verdicts online. Sophisticated legal software programs will sort through testimony and precedents and help make knowledgeable, rapid rulings.

E-cash.

Coin and cash currencies are abolished in favor of virtual money. All retailing becomes global, a free-market economic system permeates the world, and all economies are linked.

Supercomputing emerges as a powerful social tool.

Supercomputers radically accelerate research and information sharing. They cure cancer, blindness and other diseases, retard aging, find genetic keys to ending violence.

The Techno-Wars.

The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities.

Intelligent Computers

2030. Intelligent (or AI) computers advance to the level of a species, as Arthur Clarke predicts. A-life expands and flourishes, forming separate and distinct communities and traits. These machines demand - and are granted - the same equal rights humans have, including freedom of speech and thought, and the right to vote. AI machines do not, as some sci-futurists have long predicted, seek to violently conquer humanity. But they do compete with humans economically, creating corporations, products and services. Human entrepeneurs like the Bill Gates's of the future are unable to compete, especially in hi-tech arenas.

Genetic Purity.

2040. The United Nations passes bitterly controversial Genetic Purity Acts, mandating that genetic engineering be used to eliminate disease, intellectual inferiority and other human "disorders and malfunctions." "Ugly", "unhealthy", and "emotionally " human beings are not brought to conception. "Abnormal" humans (rent "Gattica" if you haven't already seen it) retreat to distant corners of the world, or begin resistance movements designed to thwart genetic engineering discrimination. Enormous class divides are created between societies with access to medical/genetic engineering and those less developed. The human race becomes homogeneous, boring and culturally unified. Genetic engineering has eliminated disease, prolonged life and destroyed biological individuality.

Predicting the future is a sport, not a science. If there's one reliable predictiction regarding technology, it's that it's not predictable.

In the best spirit of Slashdot and the Web, I've gotten some feedback and a couple of predictions even before the column was written, one from an e-mail pal - Andy Burlingame, who has a BS in Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering at Ohio State University and is working on a Ph. D. in plasma physics at Princeton.

Even writing here, it's unusual to get the chance to run these ideas by someone as well-qualified as Andy [cburling@Princeton.EDU].

As luck would have it, he's been working on a space plane project called Hypersoar. He said the biggest potential market for space planes is same day package delivery, then the military, then commercial airlines. The biggest problem: "passengers will almost certainly be puking the whole way and will probably have to be wheeled off the plane on stretchers because of the nausea. The upside is that you can go from South Dakota to Tokyo in about an hour and a half."

This technology, says Andrew, should be available by 2020.

Some of his other comments:

"Quantum computing. There are lots of people that can give better guesses than me as far as this subject goes. Recently I've heard they've found two ways to make lots of qbits, the building blocks of quantum computers.

"On the surface of Superfluid, Helium 3 electrons are trapped in potential wells and can act as qbits. Second, very cold silicon can do similar things (see Scientific American from August, I think.)

"Quantum computers make factoring large numbers into primes about as simple as multiplication. All electronic data transmission becomes insecure. Corporations start to rely on paper again. Those space planes will be very important for fast, secure communication. 2020-2025 The NSA might already have this.

" Fusion Power. This will provide a virtually unlimited energy source. From an energy standpoint, with fusion a glass of water has as much energy as a glass of gasoline, and fusion would only use a very, very small fraction of that water (the heavy water.) The big problem: How do you get the energy out of a fast neutron? Predicted benefits: We won't run out of energy when we run out of oil. Electricity from fusion will still cost about the same as electricity from natural gas, so no great social change there. This should be available by 2050.

"Clark's #7, sensory input. I just talked to a professor of neurophysiology here and he told me a few interesting things. He said that we would definitely be able to do this within 100 years. There's lots of research into this area, especially the eyes. Today we have a pad you can wear on your back that has thousands of pins in it. These pins put light pressure on the skin of your back to form a "braille" image of the b/w image from a camera. With practice, people are able to see with their skin. Fully jacking the brain should be do-able by 2100 he says definitely. I think he was being conservative.

"Way, way in the future our society becomes rich enough to put oil and raw materials back into the earth. Recognizing that society could collapse and that it could never recover without all the natural resources we've used, we do put the oil and metal back. Putting it back as it we found it might be a bit silly. Perhaps we will just provide storehouses, but we can't make things too accessible, or the developing society will use all the resources too quickly and never develop the tech to use solar or fusion power and mine the solar system.

"The idea that future civilizations could not rise due to the lack of natural resources was first noted by Niven in the Ringworld series as far as I can tell... I think I sort of remember something like that much earlier from Clark in "Children of the Stars."

"Your predictions certainly seem to be aimed at starting conversations. Lots of people will disagree with you, but they will talk. "

Hope so. Thanks, Andy.

Everybody else, jump on in.

You can pick up the Clarke's book at Amazon.

407 comments

  1. Electronic Democracy by jauren · · Score: 5

    On the national level, the big problem with purely-democratic electronic democracy is that it would require that everyone who's voting directly be educated on what they're voting on in order to vote intelligently. One of the reasons that the US is a republic as well as a democracy, ie. the reasons why we have a legislative body, is the bad roads and slow travel prevalent 200 years ago, as stated in the prediction. However, the body also exists to create an intelligent "firewall" of sorts between the everyday man and the law. In a recent Slashdot post, someone stated that, in order to survive with AI, every single person must achieve the equivalent of a college education (I think it was Clarke, actually), and it was widely agreed that this simply would *not* happen. I think direct democracy is similar; for it to work, the vast majority of Americans would have to have a college-equivalent education. As desirable as this would be (personally, anyway), I too believe this won't happen, and therefore, the vast majority of people will either be too ignorant of the issues or simply too stupid (yes, there are stupid people in the world, unfortunately) to vote intelligently on legislation.

    It is the job of the representative in the US to learn enough about an issue to vote intelligently on it when it comes up. One of the functions of the party system is to provide a party platform for representatives to join because even someone who makes it his or her job to learn about legislation issues can't keep up with absolutely everything (without sacrificing depth of knowledge). Of course, there can be some debate as to how well representatives perform in this respect, but I can only assume that they still make better decisions than the average Joe who doesn't begin to have time to gain in in-depth knowledge of an issue. To tell the truth, I myself don't want to have to gain an in-depth knowledge of every issue that comes up, but rather only those that matter or are of interest to me. And I'm sure that most people in the US would rather handle their own business as well. The point: proper legislation is a full time job.

    I think that probably a form of direct democracy will prevail in the future. Local governments seem like better candidates for direct democracy to work (it has worked in many communities from day one in town meetings and such). But I think nationally, and even in the state and county/province level, there will still be a need for professional legislators. I'd rather have an educated firewall, even a partisan and sometimes petty one, between the public and the law than not.

    --
    A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
    1. Re:Electronic Democracy by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Read "Starship Troopers" NO NOT THE MOVIE! THE BOOK.
      It goes into depth about having a direct democracy but whereby only people who are "citizens" can vote. A citizen is defined as someone who has served their time in the military. The argument goes that someone who is willing to put thier life on the line for their country/planet/whatever would be more trustworthy not to make stupid voting decisions that would destroy said place they put their life up for. While not exactly the best system, its an interesting idea, and given a nondiscrimitating millitary (as in anyone could join) people couldn't say its descriminating. Though you would have to do something special to deal with people who couldn't serve do to other problem, but you know.. no system is perfect.

    2. Re:Electronic Democracy by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      So basically what you're saying is that Electronic Democracy becomes viable when you restrict the electorate to those who have become educated on the issues. Hmm... not a bad idea, but it seems as if it's just begging to be abused. How do we determine if a person is aware enough to be an informed voter? Make them take a test? Make them solemnly swear, with right hand on the religious item of their choice?

      Maybe just adding a little difficulty would do a good enough job of filtering voters who aren't passionate enough about any issues; I don't think that it's coincidence that states with larger voter turnout happen to be states that allow registration at the polls, but I'm not convinced that that's a good thing (even though on occasion I've been one of those last-minute people.)

      Maybe we could increase voter education via some other means - e.g. offer a tax break for people who score above 50% on a politician awareness exam or something. The idea would be to give incentive without restricting existing rights, or something. I don't know if that would work.

    3. Re:Electronic Democracy by HapNstance · · Score: 2

      I agree, majority rule = mob rule, and I for one, do not like the idea of digital lynch mobs being turned loose.

    4. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 2

      It seems reasonable to think that a direct democracy would require absurd levels of education about the issues in order to get good results, but I don't think it's true.

      Have you ever watched "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"? (or something like that). Here's the basic premise: You have to answer multiple choice questions. Answer enough, and you get a million dollars. On your way to answering enough, you have 3 "help" options. One of them is that you can have the audience answer the question. The audience is NEVER wrong (at least, that's what Regis said - he was the moderator for the show, and I never witnessed the audience being wrong). I use the following reasoning to explain this:

      There will be people who know the answer, and those that don't. Those that don't will spread their answers fairly evenly about. Those that know, will all agree, so when the votes are tabulated, the correct one gets the highest percentage.

      The application of this reasoning to direct democracy suggests that not everyone needs to understand every issue fully. Not everyone needs to be a genius for it to work. The votes will ultimately get weighed in favor of those solutions that research and intelligence most often point to, simply because that is the only focusing mechanism of votes.

      With a republic, we have many focusing mechanisms, such as money, lobbying interests, corruption, partisanship, and the above mentioned "well-researched, intelligence" mechanism.

      I would argue that eliminating the other non-ideal focusing mechanisms would be a good thing.

      Notice that this does not mean we don't need full time Legislation. Yes, someone needs to be knowledgable enough to write the laws, to submit proposals for voting, etc. But, with direct democracy, those that want to spend this time, can. Those that don't, won't, and that's Ok - it's not necessary.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    5. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      So only those who had been brainwa...er, I mean trained by the military would be allowed to vote. Super!

      Reminds me of someone's idea that we only allow an ex-military person who had served in a war to be president (after all, the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces). Naturally, this leads to a situation where we are in need of war at least once every 50 years, and the person at the top of the decision tree is best able to solve problems with military solutions.....

      -- Never heard a Heinlein "solution" that made sense beyond it's instant soundbite value --

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    6. Re:Electronic Democracy by jflynn · · Score: 3

      "Of course, there can be some debate as to how well representatives perform in this respect, but I can only assume that they still make better decisions than the average Joe who doesn't begin to have time to gain in in-depth knowledge of an issue."

      Maybe they do, but you should ask yourself, better for whom? All too often politicians work directly against the interests of all but a tiny share of their constituients, for the benefit of those that pay their re-election bills, or otherwise supply them with money or power.

      This argument is very reminiscent of the software cathedral. Can't let the hoi-polloi loose on the code, any damn thing could happen. For example, Linux. It is true that moderation (like Linus) is required, but the argument that it would necessarily result in chaos is bogus I think.

      After reading slashdot, many of us wish our politicians sounded as intelligent and informed as a typical 5pt comment. The interesting thing is that the group that decides the best comments can apparently be universal, it doesn't need to be an elite, educated class. The very best comments provide references and links that lesser mortals can verify with and become educated through.

      We have a fairly widespread consensus in this country that politics is broken, so perhaps we'd better fix it. I agree with Katz that consensual democracy is worth a try, and the best idea I've heard on the subject in years. No idea how to get there from here, however, that's a tough one. Maybe just start with a "News for citizens, stuff that matters" site, with the top comments mailed to our current policy makers?

    7. Re:Electronic Democracy by jjo · · Score: 2
      I'm afraid you're not grasping the full potential of electronic democracy. It's quite true that most people (including me) are simply not interested in dealing with the vast majority of legislative issues, and are quite happy to delegate this job to representatives. However, there are always some issues that a voter does have an interest in, and would like to vote on directly.

      My personal experience with direct democracy (New England town meetings) confirms this. In my experience, the Meeting will delegate the mass of mundane business to the Town boards and committees, by the simple expedient of adopting their recommendations unchanged (and often unanimously). However, if an issue is of wide interest, and especially if some voters feel poorly represented by the board's recommendations, they will vigorously exercise their rights to debate and vote their minds.

      Electronic democracy allows us to update the ancient idea of representation, without forcing anyone to decide an issue themselves, unless they want to. The current system 'represents' a person by the candidate whose views are marginally more acceptable to a plurality of voters in a gerrymandered election district. Why not instead let the voter choose his or her own representative?

      To my mind, the most promising system of electronic democracy would

      allow a voter to designate a 'default' vote, such as "vote the same as Joe Blow" (presuming that Joe Blow has held himself out as a representative, and therefore publishes his votes), and

      allow a voter to cast a direct vote on any issue, if and when desired.


      We could still have elected legislators, to conduct fact-finding, draft proposed laws, etc., and, of course, hold themselves out as voting representatives. But, the final say would always be with the voting public.

      Of course, such a system would be fiercely opposed by the entrenched political powers, since it would give the power to the people, instead of leaving it with the political bosses, where it belongs. :-)

    8. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      This is undoubtedly why you choose to be here at slashdot - so you can stomp us all down, when necessary.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    9. Re:Electronic Democracy by YogSothoth · · Score: 1

      Well sure, I can agree that there are negative aspects to the 'you must serve in the military to vote' idea, but what about the broader idea: 'you must do *something* to distinguish yourself to be able to vote'? There are lots of parallels to this idea, for example: 'you must submit N righteous patches to be granted cvs access'. I think there is a great deal of merit to that idea (and also, having read Starship Troopers my impression was that Heinlein's point was that you have to be a citizen to vote and that that was the crux of the idea - it just so happened that citizenship was only granted to those who had served in the military). Again, I do see your point - but are you so sure that you oppose the idea in general or is it just the military angle you dislike?

      --
      there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
    10. Re:Electronic Democracy by hobbit · · Score: 1

      The kinds of minds that make good soldiers and the kinds of minds that make good voters are probably too dissimilar. The former must not question any authority higher than themselves, wheras that is exactly what you must ask the latter to do.

      Hamish

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    11. Re:Electronic Democracy by jedinite · · Score: 1

      There's no real problem with voting online, as long as the polls are handled in true slashdot fashion. For example, check the following poll for the next presidential election:

      Who should be elected president?
      ( ) George W. Bush
      ( ) Al Gore
      ( ) Steve Forbes
      ( ) Jesse Ventura
      ( ) Larry Wall
      ( ) Hemos Sux, Taco Sux, this Poll Sux
      ( ) Drop the Chulupa


      Most of the time, the "strange and humorous" choices would weed out the idiots... the only real problems would be those times when the only option that looks good is "Hemos Sux, Taco Sux, this Poll Sux".

      ---------
      Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

      --

      ---------
      There is no try at jedinite.com
    12. Re:Electronic Democracy by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 1

      I think that if universal electronic democracy were ever to come about, two things would happen:

      1. People would tend to specialize in their own areas of interest. I would, for instance, probably be most interested in areas like transportation and technology that either touch my life on a daily basis, or I have some experience with and can (at least partially) understand the issues involved. I would be a lot less likely to be worried about issues like agriculture and the military because, while I know they affect me in some way, I don't know enough about them to make intelligent decisions and only have a certain amount of time to spend on civic duties (although if some of these predictions come true, that amount of time may steadily increase).

      2. A new group of professional politicians will arise who will be more than glad to do your thinking for you in certain areas. Something like lobbyists, perhaps, but not (necessarily) funded by corporations or PACs. They would do the research on their areas of interest and report back to the public.

      One way this might work was outlined in L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach. In it he envisions an alternate-America democracy in which anyone who wants to can show up for Congress. However, most people don't care to make the trek to the Capitol (intentionally parked on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, as I recall) so they delegate proxies to vote for them. If you like the way a potential proxy thinks, you can register to have him or her cast votes on your behalf. If they tick you off sufficiently, you unregister. I can easily see advances in digital democracy leading to citizens being allowed to delegate different proxies for different issues.

      Granted, this is not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have now. That's why we're talking about the possibility that it might change, right?
      --

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
    13. Re:Electronic Democracy by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Have you never noticed that the audience's margin of surety decreases the harder (i.e. the closer to the million) the questions get?

      And in a quizshow, there is a right answer. When you vote for a politician or party, you tend to have to make compromises (unless you're unbelievably lucky).

      Hamish

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    14. Re:Electronic Democracy by Enoch · · Score: 1

      A solution to an electronic democracy can be found through other techniques expounded upon. For example, the big problem with everyone having an equal say is that less intelligent and/or less informed people have an equal amount of say as those who are opposite of that. (Before I continue, I would lack to add that I do not necessarily agree with pre-birth genetic engineering). Through the notion that babies, while still in the womb, can be genetically manipulated, the so-called "dumb, ignorant, complacent" people can be nullified. Hell, for all I know, a certain inclination to care could be hard-wired in (I don't know that much about genetic-engineering).
      Even further, a certain error-checking to voting on topics can be added. For example (and this is just one exmaple -- I am sure there are more), a small series of questions can be asked before the person is allowed to vote on the issue. Then, a certain weight is added to that person's vote depending on how many questions were answered correctly. Even if the voter cheats and researches the answers to the questions, he or she suddenly becomes an informed voter.
      Also, I like to think that there are more informed people than ingnorant -- no matter how many times society proves me wrong. A hopeless optimist.

    15. Re:Electronic Democracy by garver · · Score: 1

      Good points, but I don't think a government should be fundamentally based on the belief that the people governed aren't smart/literate enough to make good decisions. This gets into the controversy of what defines a person that is able to govern themselves. Everyone has their own definition, as well they should.

      I think the representative govn't in the US today has two major problems: 1) representatives aren't really representing people, just money; and 2) citizens aren't motivated to do anything about it. I think the reason for 2) is because all representatives are believed to be corrupt and the only thing citizens can do is vote for one. Hence, caring is futile, people don't vote, and don't take govn't serious.

      I say the only real solution is to remove the representatives (as we know them) and give people more to vote on. But, you are right that people don't have enough time to research and vote on all of the issues (local, state, federal).

      Instead, allow citizens to choose who represents them more frequently by giving a rep control of your vote. You can take it back any time you like, vote yourself, or move it to another rep. In other words, I and others could give our voting power to rep1. He accumulates 100 votes and for every issue, his vote counts for a 100 people. Later, I decide that I don't like the way rep1 is voting, I move my vote to rep2, but I don't have to wait until the next election. In effect, rep1 answers immediately to something I don't approve of.

      The goal here would be to have more reps and to take the money out of it. A person could be a rep, just by publishing their voting record in a public forum and waiting for people that agree. They don't have to campaign.

      This isn't perfect, but I think it would be a good replacemnt for the House of Reps. The Senate and Executive and Judical branches would require further thought.

    16. Re:Electronic Democracy by Tau+Zero · · Score: 4
      There will be people who know the answer, and those that don't. Those that don't will spread their answers fairly evenly about. Those that know, will all agree, so when the votes are tabulated, the correct one gets the highest percentage.
      That works for trivia quizzes. But do you expect the same thing to work for questions of policy? You can be pretty sure it would not; there are too many emotionally-loaded issues that people don't have the time to check up on.

      Thought experiment: Immediately after Columbine, suppose a vote was held on banning trench coats and subjecting school outcasts and players of Quake to daily searches to prevent shootings and bombings. Given the hysteria whipped up about the hypothetical associations and hobbies of Dylan and Klebold you could expect something like this to have a chance of passing; once passed, it would be much harder to revisit the issue and rescind it. Or suppose someone decided to demagogue the Jon-Benet Ramsey murder and subject all child beauty pageant participants and promoters to fingerprinting and background checks?

      Direct democracy doesn't work on the scale of the USA. It can't. What might work is a second-generation representative democracy where we delegate proxies to certain reps (perhaps on an issue-by-issue basis), but that is still paying people to do the political work that we do not have time to do ourselves.
      --
      Deja Moo: The feeling that

      --
      Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
    17. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      Any criteria you put on citizenship will become a dominant focusing mechanism on the voters.

      What do I mean by focusing mechanism? Well, if you are going to predict a outcome of a vote from a large number of individuals, you might try to determine what similarities all those voters have in the context of what they're voting about. The similarites you pick out are what I call focusing mechanisms.

      To take another step back - if every voter is completely dissimilar from every other voter, you might say you'd get a perfectly random distribution of votes on any subject. If you define a similarity in two voters, than you might expect all votes to be random except those two, who will vote effectively as a block, and thus perturb the otherwise randomness of the votes. Get a block of 100, and they effectively rule.

      I hope that explains what I mean by a focusing mechanism. If every citizen is required to have served in the military, that's a profound focus. It's not just a block of would-be voters - it's all of them. Other voices don't even get heard, regardless of their validity.

      I think any criteria you choose would create an undesirably powerful focusing mechanism. Currently, money is the primary such mechanism, I think.

      you're example of "you must submit N righteous patches to be granted cvs access" suggests that those without citizenship were allowed to submit patches, in the first place. If you want to use the Open Source movement as an example, are their people that aren't allowed to write Open Source Code? Do you need a degree? No, you need the desire and that's it. Anyone who wants to can start writing the next Linux. Notice how nobody particulary fears that all the unwashed masses will stupidly start installing this new, untested Linux blindly.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    18. Re:Electronic Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all those choices are strange and humorous

    19. Re:Electronic Democracy by HapNstance · · Score: 1

      The flaw in your statement is that every issue will have a correct answer for the majority to know. Many of the issues will be ones that appeal strongly to some emotion. The majority will then vote their emotion and not their knowledge. This is (as I said earlier) when majority rule becomes a lynch mob. Enough "voters" get emotionally wound-up about the issue and the next thing you know, they've voted in incorrect solution. Emotion is a way powerful force, and even the most disciplined will have trouble controlling it, given an issue that is on their hot list. Your other statements listing the "focusing mechanisms" does not go away either in a pure democracy; I gaurantee that money and corruption would still be a "focusing mechanism".

    20. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      This is the immediacy argument. It's a straw man. Who said electronic democracy meant immediate and final votes? That's a question of how the system is set up, with time periods, processes, etc. I would imagine any issue up for vote would have a minimum time period required spent on public discussion and research, etc.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    21. Re:Electronic Democracy by Sorklin · · Score: 1

      It may not be true that you would need an absurd amount of education to make direct democracy work, but it would definetely help. One of the major drawbacks to direct democracy is the influence of advertisement on the general public. If you want to see this in action, just go to your local supermarket and look at what gets sold. Often there will be many products in a category at a certain price point. Usually the majority of the money goes to the product with the best advertising.

      I think there would no difference in a direct democracy. Most of the population would vote what is 'cool' and not necessarily what is good for us.

    22. Re:Electronic Democracy by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      I'd have to go back and re-read it to be sure, but I don't think citizenship was limited to military vets. That was just the focus. I think some forms of civil service counted as well.

    23. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      The harder the question, the fewer people who actually know the answer, thus the more diluted the effect. I'm sure there comes a point where the effect is so diluted as to be insignificant.

      As far as there not being a right answer - sometimes and sometimes not. There are many here who seem to fear very much that there IS a right answer, and that the masses will get it wrong, but whereas their elected official will get it right. I don't pretend to understand their logic, but it's all over these postings.

      And when the issue is too muddled to know if there is a right answer, I guess it comes down to which group you have more confidence in, on an emotional level.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    24. Re:Electronic Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been a good idea except in the 2nd season of the original UK version of the programme, the audience managed to lose people a total of serveral 100,000 GBP with wrong answers. And a couple of times people asked the audience, ignored the answer given, and got it right. So the masses aren't always correct - and even if they could be trusted, what voting system would you use to decide which answer voted for was the best? And who decides which answers go up for a vote?

    25. Re:Electronic Democracy by shaum · · Score: 1
      A citizen is defined as someone who has served their time in the military.

      Almost; the requirement was two years of public service, which might or might not be in the military, at the discretion of the government. Also, you had to have actually completed your service; if you were on active duty, you were still not allowed to vote or hold office. Finally, even those who hadn't qualified to vote still had freedom of speech, property ownership, etc.

      Heinlein expanded on this in an essay in Expanded Universe, and suggested alternatives: require that the voter solve a quadratic equation, or pay a modest poll tax. (Think about that one; could anyone afford to buy an election if votes were $20 a pop?) Finally, he suggested (without any apparent irony) only allowing mothers to vote.

      His idea was not so much pro-military as it was against automatic, universal suffrage. He thought there should be some kind of standard that voters be required to meet: civic-mindedness (the public service rule), intelligence and education (the equation-solving rule), a vested interest in the future (the mothers-only rule), or simply motivation (the poll tax).

      I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Heinlein; in fact, I don't, though I acknowledge that he was addressing a very real and vexing problem.

    26. Re:Electronic Democracy by Head+Louse · · Score: 1
      having read Starship Troopers my impression was that Heinlein's point was that you have to be a citizen to vote and that that was the crux of the idea - it just so happened that citizenship was only granted to those who had served in the military

      I too have read starship troopers and I find it very very hard to distance the military side of the issue. The military aspect was hammered home again and again and again through out the book. If there was crux to the idea it was the idea that a perfect citizen (ie. perfect person) was a person who risked his/her (or other soldiers) lives for the "commen good." Thus the perfect citizen was either a person who treated others like cattle or was cattle themselves. This brainwashed bovinish mob as perfect society idea was approached again in Stranger in a Strange Land in the form of a religious cult.

    27. Re:Electronic Democracy by Head+Louse · · Score: 1

      I agree with the fact that those who do not know the issues will turn to those who do. In fact thats what Congressmen do all the time. They turn to lobbyists and political thinktanks to give them the information. Which of course leads to biased info but most congressmen don't really care since they are to busy trying to raise money for their next campaign to really research the issues.

      However a full democracy has the same problems since most corperations and "grass-roots" organization would be more then happy spend lots of money to advertise their views on the issues. This leads to great things like:

      "Humm... well Bill #3448 is fully indorsed by the great taste of Pepsi II Opaque! But My favorite cereal Toasted Twig Sticks is against it... Then I guess it must be a No vote."

      Before we can have an effective full democracy the problems with the real ones must be approached or they will be doomed to be repeated.

    28. Re:Electronic Democracy by stevew · · Score: 1

      You mean like that /. effect?

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    29. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes, and yes, to all you say here (except that majority = mob).

      This is all true in representative and direct. I am arguing that I seem incremental improvement on most these issues in direct democracy. I do not think direct = mob. You are saying that any sufficiently large group of people behaves like a mob at all times. I would argue that mob behavior never happens unless there is a single point of focus for that mob - an instigator.

      And I also believe mob behavior is in large part a physical phenomenon, and wouldn't have much parallel in the digital world.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    30. Re:Electronic Democracy by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      All too often politicians work directly against the interests of all but a tiny share of their constituients, for the benefit of those that pay their re-election bills, or otherwise supply them with money or power.

      So when re-election time comes around, vote them out of office. Or hell, if they're constantly doing this, get them removed from their office.

      It is true that moderation (like Linus) is required, but the argument that it would necessarily result in chaos is bogus I think.

      I don't know about that.. you may have two or three people writing up the same feature, but doing it differently (and perhaps poorly). Without some controls in place (a "moderator"), development like this would be impossible. See if you can get stats on the number of patches accepted, rejected outright or rejected until changes can be made.

      interesting thing is that the group that decides the best comments can apparently be universal, it doesn't need to be an elite, educated class.

      This is why we regularly see uneducated comments that do make a valid point, but have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, at 4+ points.

      The whole IBM hardware encryption thread a while back spawned dozens of highly rated comments that basically all said "this is bad because CPU ID's are bad." This is a perfect example of the "general" public commenting on something that they have almost zero factual data about (or have made erroneous generalizations/assumptions).

      Maybe just start with a "News for citizens, stuff that matters" site, with the top comments mailed to our current policy makers?

      I sent a submission (unpublished) to Malda a while back about an idea I'd had for a Slashdot-like government-oriented site, with different tiers for national/state/community regions where people could get the latest unbiased scoop on pending legislation, elections and candidate info. As it would be directly relevant to politics today and comments nicely sorted by geopolitical areas, it would be a perfect thing for your own legislators to monitor (and even participate in)...

    31. Re:Electronic Democracy by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The one sensible choice is clearly Larry Wall.

      --
      Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
    32. Re:Electronic Democracy by spinkham · · Score: 1

      The problem withthis is that you think there is always a right answer..
      Usually in politics you are choosing the lesser of two evils, balancing power, and making things "fair".
      None of these things are really definable outside of our particular metanarrative, and I think you would be hard pressed to define right outside of "what the majority of people want".
      Politics are really the same realm as religion, if you really stop to think about it...
      And the amount that our politics match our chosen religion shows how real that religion is to us.
      If I was to kill Hemos, would that be wrong? punishable? Basically how answer that shows what you really think about reality.
      Because of this definition of politics, I believe the closer the power is to the people, the better the government, as it would more reflect how their ethics are acted out.
      The better government is only the one that gives what its people want.
      (BTW, I am a Christian, and believe in absolute right and wrong, being defined by God's revelation to us, mostly documented in the Bible. Outside of that grounding, I see no basis for deceny and order. But our culture as a whole still is based mostly on Judeo/Christian ethics despite the rampant philosphical denial of the fundementals of that ethics in our culture.)
      (also, I respect the rules of those of other worldviews, and will agree to live under the rule of the majority's views, whether they are "good" acording to how I have come to understand good or not. However, would much prefer that our Judeo/Christian values continue, as they have proven to be the most benificial to all...)

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    33. Re:Electronic Democracy by Smokin+Goat+McGruff · · Score: 1

      Politicians do things for election money or power when they're apathetic to an issue. If they really beleive something I would hope they don't sell out that easy. But, on issues where they don't care either way, vote they way that will help yourself. Maybe their should be an "I don't care" option in addition to yes or no.

      Also, people think the government is broken, it's not. Thing are supposed to be slow and painful so we don't make quick and stupid decisions.

      Oh, and BTW, philosophers should rule the world.

      --
      "There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
    34. Re:Electronic Democracy by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Good comment.. Where's my moderator rights when I want them ;-)
      This is perhaps the ideal solution.. the best idea I've seen in this thread anyway ;-)
      So how do we go about getting this implemented?

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    35. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      The idea behind Heinliens limited democracy with respect to serving in the military had nothing to do with neccissarily becoming a good soldier. No one could be denied military services. A blind def dumb invalid who insisted on serving would be accomadated. Pacifists would have jobs created for them which did not interfere with their personal morality, etc. etc. etc.

      The binding factor?
      All possible jobs would concievable put a person at risk of life at one point in time, or anouther.
      Care enough about policy to risk your life on it?

      It's a good concept.

      -Tilde

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    36. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      I addressed your bigoted splooge in a post
      slightly above this one.

      Before people knock out crap like this, i suggest they get to know some people who have served in the military. They're no more brainwashed than you are (which might not be saying much).

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    37. Re:Electronic Democracy by Xenu · · Score: 1
      Have you ever been in the military?

      Many Liberals have this bizarre idea that anyone with military experience must be a baby-killing warmonger.

      I was in the Army and my experience was that soldiers, more than anyone else, understand that war is an ugly, deadly business, not some John Wayne movie fantasy.

      When numerous civilians were making jingoistic remarks that we ought to go to [insert name of oil producing country] and kick their ass and take their oil, I didn't hear a single soldier say these things. They knew who would end up with a blown off leg or their guts spilled out on the sand, them, not some yuppie shit in his BMW.

      When the executive branch has held war games for high ranking officials, the civilians, not the flag officers, were far more likely to escalate the situation into World War III.

    38. Re:Electronic Democracy by Captain+Teflon · · Score: 1

      Oh, and BTW, philosophers should rule the world.

      You obviously haven't hung out with too many philosophers.

      My Dad is a retired professor of philosophy. He's a great guy, and I've met a lot of his colleagues.

      There is no way I'd want to let these guys anywhere near government. And I think that goes for most academics. There's no substitute for real world experience.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    39. Re:Electronic Democracy by Rational · · Score: 1

      I rather disagree. I think that being willing to put your life on the line for an issue should disqualify you from voting on it, since you are obviously unable to make a rational, detached decision.

      All issues would come down to be decided by imbecile fundamentalists who think they are going to get their reward in heaven, or some such nonsense.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    40. Re:Electronic Democracy by Captain+Teflon · · Score: 1

      All too often politicians work directly against the interests of all but a tiny share of their constituients, for the benefit of those that pay their re-election bills, or otherwise supply them with money or power.


      Which makes their motivation pretty much the same as the rest of us. Most admire altruism, but generally when other people do it if the issue affects us directly.

      Can't let the hoi-polloi loose on the code, any damn thing could happen. For example, Linux. It is true that moderation (like Linus) is required, but the argument that it would necessarily result in chaos is bogus I think.

      This is a Linux oriented forum, but why does it have to get dragged into absolutely everything? The Linux model is different in any case. The work is done by the hoi polloi, who have latitude to do specific tasks their way, but government/moderation is done by Linus and has delegates/appointees, not by consensus. Pretty much like the way government now works in both countries. Not a bad thing, but hardly consensual democracy. Yes, anyone can go out and make their own distro, but surely you don't want to extend that out to evryone who's pissed off with the Central Government starting their own little country.

      In this consensual democracy, who decides what questions are put to the masses? Government involves an enormous amount of compromise - decisions must be based on previous decisions and the average Joe/Josephine would need to keep track of the hugely complex web of historical legislation, as well as budgets, economic forecasts, global security issues, the concerns of other countries, etc. I can see one vote approving a social program and another indirectly knocking back the funding which would allow it to happen.

      Do I service my own car or do my own plumbing? Nah. I hire someone to do it. You go this way, you'll get lots of entrepreneurs offering to vote with your interests at heart and lots of punters willing to hire them. May be morally questionable perhaps, but it'll still happen. You'd pay people to make decisions for you rather than elect them.

      We have a fairly widespread consensus in this country that politics is broken,

      Do we? Which country? Are you assuming the US is the whole world again?



      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    41. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      There has been alot of talk about digital democracy. It's significantly more thought out than the last time this topic came up, which amounted to a flame war.

      I've seen a bunch of comments come up and i guess i feel the need to talk about some of them, because this is an issue that is very important to me.

      The initial auther of this post had it absolutely correct in recognizing that the buffering effect of a representative government is A Good Thing(tm) and that instant voting on any/all issues, would be A Bad Thing(tm).

      Someone stomped on this by pointing out crooked politicians. Sure, they exist. However, one must recognize that these crooked politicians were infact elected by the people some want to give the instant vote too. They didn't just step out of the void, and they weren't handed their position at birth. Someone decided to vote for them, the majority of someone's actually. The argument that instant vote avoids power-broking/bad policy through the elimination of the currupt middleman misses the fact that that power that's brokered comes from the voters and that policy that's bad is passed because it's what that crooked middleman thinks will make his constiuents happy so he can continue to broker power.

      Next, the idea that "online town meetings" will stop propaganda/bad policy. Absolutely not. Even if you abolish congress and rely on the online vote, there will still be charasmic leaders who effect the public vote with a collection of information that they believe/want the public to believe is true. This will come in to play regardless of the average level of education of the voter. The policys that win won't neccissarily be the best policies, but the policies that have the best propagada/retoric behind them. Balanced budgets will be marked like Nike shoes. "Just do it". Is this how you want your tax law created? Don't say that intellegent/educated people won't fall it. How many of you are wearing clothing/accessories from Nike, Adidas, Bugle Boy, or The Gap? Think Lobbiests are bad now? What happens when coporations don't need them, and take clever intuitive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns aimed at making policy directly to the people.

      It won't abolish political parties either. Those charismic leaders need a group with them. It might radically change them. Think on this... All this policy making requires people to keep up with an aweful lot of public dissertation, even it it's limited to just the issues that they are concerned about. They'll look to these charasmatic leaders for a quick summary or break down. It happens now. How many people listen to talk radio stations, each with it's own slant? From Rush to Gush Raving Concervatives and Bleeding Heart liberal shows rule our largest public forums. Non-profit organizations would form to allow these people to quit honest jobs to keep informed in order to inform voters. These will be virtual legislatues with NO CHECKS OR BALANCES.

      Something else that is seemingly ignored, is network intrusion. The current voting system is bad enough, and around the nation, continuosly there are calls for recounts and charges of election fraud. (Most recently, in my memory, in the goubenatorial elections in Maryland and New Jersey). Again the amount of funding that could be poured into this is silly. Imagine the effects of anouther nation channeling it's resources to effect american voting. It would happen at least once.


      Do i see a possible good thing in istant voting?
      Possibly - Bad policy could be recinded almost as soon as it was passed. But even this is a mixed blessing. Beurcarcys are slow, and they are also a requirement to accomplish anything. Pass a national healthcare law one evening. Two days later the government and mandated HMO's are restucturing and Joe Schmoe finds out how much this is costing and is going to cost, and the policy is recinded. That money's already lost. How many times could that happen? How much money would be blown in changes of policy that happen to quick? Additionally, who's voting, and when are they taking the time to learn the facts. Apply this to criminal law, and the people who go to jail one day for a law thats recinded the next. Couple this with the slowness of the Jusdicial system. Lets not even get into making the Judicial system an instant vote thing. Do you want to air the dirty laundry of your divorce before the nation?

      If the world were a perfect place, we wouldn't need government. If people were even close to perfect, then unlimited democracy would be best. But people aren't, and the unlimited democracy rests it's faith entirely in the good common sence of the good common man. In the united states at least, this is the comman man who sues McDonalds over spilling hot coffee on itself. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view of people. Weather or not it is, it's a far more realistic view than believing people are ready or capable of dealing with issues directly and immediatly.

      Maybe some individuals are. Go into politics. I'll vote for you. But i don't think any Individuals are ready for the wide sweeping and unpredictable changes that would happen if such a system were implemented. The ability to make desire policy would rest so much more firmly with those with economic power than it does now, that it would be silly.

      As a prediction, if such a system gets implemented, (and i think it will) then i believe there will very quickly be a "luddite" uprising. But i don't think it will consist of the lunatic fringe the way it seems to be implied above. I think it'll be a large collection of average joes who are sick of seeing the idiot policys that pass day after day and are recinded 3 days later and cripple the government with constantly changing policy and mire the entire nation in all encompasing politcal debate.

      -Tilde

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    42. Re:Electronic Democracy by Rational · · Score: 1

      Well, you cannot blame anybody if the perception is that the main reasons why people join the military is ether that they enjoy taking orders or that they are looking forward to eventually being giving them. I can't say I care much for either case...

      On the other hand, I fully agree about the stupidity of jingoistic civilian idiots whose hides aren't in the line of fire. I don't like the idea of armies' fates being in the hands of civilians without military experience any more than I like the idea of the military types getting their hands on the government, but as long as we have armies I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about either.



      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    43. Re:Electronic Democracy by ntech · · Score: 1

      Well reading through this is about a scary as it can get. Are people really advocating for an elite group of intellectuals that will decide the fact of the unwashed masses. Who defines the questions that define you as a member of the voting elite? Anyone remember literacy tests in the south to prevent " undesirables " from voting. Because you feel intellectually superior to your fellow man doesn't give you the right to control his or her life. One-man one vote is what makes everyone feel like they have control over their future. Take that away and the "feeble minded underclass" will rise up against their "intellectually superior" ruling class. Someone has to clean sewers and someone has to paint pictures. All make society work and all have a say in it's future. Many of you advocating for this kind of a system As to electronic democracy, the American form of government was designed specifically to avoid such knee jerk lawmaking. The point of the American form of government is to make sure rash laws are not passed in the heat of the moment. So that if a bomb goes off in a federal building killing many people the electronic election that night doesn't vote to kick all Arabs out of the country. Tell me that wasn't the mood of the country after Oklahoma City. Think of the discourse on you favorite news group and then imagine the debate each night over lawmaking. It would tear the county apart. I can't think of a worst idea.

    44. Re:Electronic Democracy by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Actually the whole Linux source code analogy is quite relevant to a republic. Lot's of people participate to some extent, but the direction comes from the top (Linus, Alan, etc.). However, if Linus and crew decide to take a direction that the community doesn't like, then they are welcome to, but they risk having the source code forked.

      In the case of a source code fork, it's the users (the general Linux populace) that eventually get to decide.

      Heck, if you abstract the whole enchilada a little further it is even possible to draw parallels between the Emacs/vi divisions and the American two party republic. Advocates of both of these tools are actively trying to gain users (voters) which both fuel further development, and create de-facto standards. You could even count XEmacs as a "Reform" party.

      Yikes! it must be time to go home.

    45. Re:Electronic Democracy by Smokin+Goat+McGruff · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't hung out with too many philosophers.

      Funny that you say that. I'm minoring in philosophy (CS major) and my roommate is majoring in philosophy.

      Philosophers are interested in truth, not the whims of the majority. The best government is run by the best people, the philosophers. The problem is we don't know who the best people are.

      So, we choose the second best government, a democracy. Where we all decide who we think is best to run the government.

      There is no way I'd want to let these guys anywhere near government. And I think that goes for most academics. There's no substitute for real world experience.

      I wouldn't want them to run the government nowadays either. I was half joking with my original comment. :)

      BTW, Socrates wasn't interested in public affairs.

      --
      "There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
    46. Re:Electronic Democracy by jauren · · Score: 1

      "Maybe there should be an 'I don't care' option in addition to yes or no."

      This is one of the functions of the party system: give those who don't care or don't know or can't decide about an issue a consistent stance in line with that of the party.

      If those who think alike are in the same party, then it stands to reason that, had they an opinion, it would be the same one held by the party. This doesn't always happen of course, and the instances where it does not are usually newsworthy (politicians switching party because of continual disagreement, dissenters in impeachment trials, etc.), so the public hears about them more. But in the vast majority of issues where a politician might not care about or be knowledgable of an issue, their vote is decided by the party's vote. Politicians in America need to take a side on most issues, even those that they don't care or know about, because politicians with weak or inconsistent voting records tend to get cast aside. I don't know whether this is good or bad, really...you could call say that the public forces politicians to take sides on issues in which they have no business taking a side, but also that this public pressure forces politicians to think about issues they wouldn't normally ponder if they were free to only vote on issues they care about. I think, probably, that the second possibility is flawed because, as I said, they don't necessarily have to think about those issues; they just have to vote with the party.

      /ramble

      --
      A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
    47. Re:Electronic Democracy by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Its not a single issue your putting your life on the line for, its the country as a whole. When you have to defend something with your life, your much more likly to see to its best interest.

    48. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      You've read too much plato
      and not enough locke

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    49. Re:Electronic Democracy by m3000 · · Score: 2

      Maybe there won't even be a problem with this. Hardly anyone votes nowdays anyway.

      In 2004 15% of Americas voted on the presidency
      In 2008 7% of Americans voted on the presidency
      In 2012 there was no election.

    50. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      It is not a straw man.

      Immediacy was clearly stated in the original post.

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    51. Re:Electronic Democracy by jauren · · Score: 1

      This actually sounds like a very intruiging (sp?) system. However, I would have to ask, in town meetings, those who have a compelling interest in debating must actually go somewhere and debate, don't they? And then, who specifically gets to vote? Whoever is there? I think that with electronic democracy, you would have quite a bit of "Hey, man, there's an vote tonight on 'blah' and I need your support. Vote 'yes'." You might have people calling all their friends and telling them to spend five minutes going to a web site and voting to support something that doesn't even affect them. It's much easier to get your friends and acquantances, or anyone who knows you as a biggie in the community, to help you out in votes where they themselves might not usually want to vote. It would be, in other words, the same political system we have now, with political leaders and followers, but the best idea doesn't necessarily win; the belief proposed by the guy with the most followers does.

      Your ideas do sound reasonable, and much of what I said depends on the relative maturity of the community (not in age but rather in intelligence). It might work; I'd be interested to hear about experiments where such a system is being tried.

      --
      A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
    52. Re:Electronic Democracy by lscoughlin · · Score: 1

      And I also believe mob behavior is in large part a physical phenomenon, and wouldn't have much parallel in the digital world. Are we reading the same slashdot?

      --
      Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
    53. Re:Electronic Democracy by jauren · · Score: 1

      This is very similar to the modern day electoral college used to elect the president. And it may turn out just the same; how many people are really consciously aware that, when they vote for president, they're actually voting for someone else, a proxy, who has said that he will probably vote for a particular president?

      --
      A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
    54. Re:Electronic Democracy by jauren · · Score: 1

      "Who defines the questions that define you as a member of the voting elite?"

      Who indeed? Direct voting on that would definately not be a possibility; everyone would vote for the easy questions ;-)

      I personally think, however, that to break the possible voting "classes" down into the "intellectually superior" and the "feeble minded underclass" is a bit naive (sp?). People run the whole range of sensibility and education.

      Even given the class premise, though, I don't quite follow your argument. You seem to be very much against legislation by the elite, but then you defend the American system of government, which is set up quite that way: legislation by "elite", but where these elite are chosen by the people as a whole. I'm not holding a flamethrower; I just want to know specifically what you mean. I think that maybe you're confusing 'legislation' with 'rule'. No one wants to be *ruled* by the more intelligent among us, but I'm sure that everyone would prefer that the people who's job it is to take the time to learn about and vote on the issues be educated.

      --
      A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
    55. Re:Electronic Democracy by Rational · · Score: 1

      Countries don't serve any useful function anymore... Why should I feel more related to an American whose views and values I despise than to a Frenchman I actually agree with?

      Countries aren't worth dying for. Ideas are, but only to the extent to which those ideas won't be better served by living another day.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    56. Re:Electronic Democracy by odaiwai · · Score: 1

      Heinlein also mentions in ST that there were plenty of non-combatant jobs in the Service. If someone wanted to do their bit, but couldn't fight, then there was a job for them.

      You might also want to check out David Gerrold's "War against the Chtorr" series (if you can find it) for exploration of similar themes.

      dave

    57. Re:Electronic Democracy by Plugh · · Score: 1

      Frank Herbert explored this concept in "The Dosadi Experiment" He called it the DemoPol (Short for 'Democratic Poll', I think). His basic observation was that a "pure" democracy serves to elevate mediocrity.

      Quite right. Already we allow anyone to vote, whether or not they have spent even 5 seconds thinking rationally about the issue.

      Americans seem to think that, by magic, if enough people would just vote, somehow the "correct" decision or candidate will prevail. How hopelessly wrong!

    58. Re:Electronic Democracy by Plugh · · Score: 1

      > Who defines the questions that define you as a member of the voting elite?

      Well, I like Kurt Vonnegut's semi-facetious suggestion: upon entering the voting booth, you are presented with a simple binomial equation, one with distinct small-valued integer roots. Provide the roots and make your votes!

      More seriously, I can easily imagine a few multiple-choice questions that, if you don't know the answer right away, you *should not* vote.

      Example:

      "The conditions most likely to preceed a Dictatorship are:
      A) Prosperity, everyone has a job and money
      B) Recession, some people are out of work
      C) Chaos, society breaking down, nobody in control"

    59. Re:Electronic Democracy by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Well it had to be in the military per say, but there where branches of the military that were service oriented, which we have those types of services even today ala part of the guard and corp (spelling???).

    60. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could make an argument here instead of just saying "no it's not". Why isn't it? Where do you disagree with my reasoning?

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    61. Re:Electronic Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you bother read the second line?

    62. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1
      And I also believe mob behavior is in large part a physical phenomenon, and wouldn't have much parallel in the digital world.
      Are we reading the same slashdot?


      We are not. But from your experiences, what about Slashdot has constituted mob behavior? And what has made this a scary experience for you? Perhaps you've been moderated down unfairly? I know I feel I have on once occasion. But that wasn't mob behavior - that was the action of a single moderator.

      Perhaps you've felt attacked by me? I'm sorry. I didn't mean too. I don't think I've launched any ad hominem attacks, but I could be wrong. But you've also had your defender's, or at least those who agreed with you, and not me. Vice-versa as well, which seems to contradict the mob theory. What makes a mob scary is when it goes in the same direction.

      And the /. effect? Bringing down web-sites as viewers "stampede" through posted links? To quote a Stephenson character - It's a metaphor. And a poor one at that. No one is being trampled. Sites go down, they come back up. We come back here and talk about it, and have surprisingly rational discussions.

      Maybe you need to define mob behaior for me, cause I'm not really seeing it.
      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    63. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1
      Yes, I did. But I wanted a response to my reasoning. Someone said electronic democracy wouldn't work because immediate votes after an emotional event would bad. I agree. I went on point out that that doesn't invalidate electronic democracy, it only means we need processes in place to protect against that, just as we do now.

      I call it a straw man because it sets up electronic democracy in a less than ideal fashion in order to make knocking it down easier. I'm trying to put up a stronger target for you to argue against.

      As for the original post, here is the section I believe you're referring to:
      All elections are tabulated digitally. The fractious, fragmented, eternally unresolvable two-party political-media system on display on
      Washington-based talk shows daily is gradually replaced by online discussions, research and information-sharing and instant voting
      that actually resolves issues by majority rule. Washington, like Bonn, is re-engineered from a national capitol to a hi-tech enclave.


      That says on-line discussions, research and information sharing - which suggests time spent on issues prior to voting - and then says "instant voting", which is either a poorly chosen phrase to mean electronic voting, or simply that Jon hasn't thought it all through yet.

      I'm interested in real reasons why you think electronic democracy would be bad. I've pointed out that the immediacy argument is a straw man. If you disagree with that, please cite your reasons in 250 words or less ;-) (just kidding!)


      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    64. Re:Electronic Democracy by speek · · Score: 1
      ...that instant voting on any/all issues, would be A Bad Thing
      Instant voting would be a bad thing. That's why the system would never be set up to offer up policies in the morning for vote in the afternoon. There would be process, just like currently there is. There would be mandatory time periods for discussion and review. There would be research committees that would research issues and submit their results... etc. None would be totally unbiased - the facts of humanity aren't going to change! But, everyone would have opportunities for rebuttal and mind changing. Time for emotions to settle.
      Someone stomped on this by pointing out crooked politicians. Sure, they exist. However, one must recognize that these crooked politicians were infact elected by the people some want to give the instant vote too. They didn't just step out of the void, and they weren't handed their position at birth. Someone decided to vote for them, the majority of someone's actually
      Sounds like you're arguing that the source of corruption comes from the people anyway, so direct democracy wouldn't help. I would suggest that this alone is not an argument against direct democracy. If the source of corruption truly is the people, than nothing will change. If it's not, then things would be improved.

      You might also be arguing that this proves that people make poor decisions as a voting whole, and you feel better that power is left to the few who get elected who most likely know more about what is going on than you or me. But then I say, how often do we see arguments here at Slashdot about how clueless gov't officials are on matters we know about (cryptography, for example). How often is it really, that those in congress are the most knowledgeable? Virtually never, IMO, by the very nature of their job. On average, they know a hell of lot more than me. But they know less than the public as a whole.

      Ok, but that knowledge is hopelessy dilulted, right? It's never going to show through. But then, witness this Jane's Intelligence Review thing about security. How many of the thousands at Slashdot really know that much about computer security? Yet mostly good stuff showed through anyway (notice, I'm not arguing "the best" showed through).

      I think the theory deserves to be put to the test. I'd like my assertions to be tested out somehow.

      Additionally, I think that voting for a person vs. voting on a bill are very different animals. In one, you have to vote for someone. In the other, you can always simply vote "no".
      Think Lobbiests are bad now? What happens when coporations don't need them, and take clever intuitive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns aimed at making policy directly to the people
      You are right here, I think. Special interests would start lobbying the people directly, through television ads. Of course, they do already, though maybe the impact of that is minimalized because of the buffering system we have in place. But I'll argue that it's still better. Right now, someone is lobbying your congressman. There's money behind that lobbyist. Funding your congressman's campaign. How well informed are we of this lobbying and funding? If it were all out in the open, we could all see it, and at least have a chance to fight it - either through rational discussion, or ads on TV of our own. The number of "lobbyists" would increase dramatically, which is to say, more people would get a voice, which I think is good.

      Also, ads could be barred from the internet site(s) that ran the discussion and voting. Personally, I would be in favor of banning images at these sites. TV political ads could be banned just as smoking ads are, though this would be hard to truly enforce.
      It won't abolish political parties either
      No, it wouldn't. We'd probably end up with more of them. Again, all good, IMO. 3 choices is better than 2.
      They'll look to these charasmatic leaders for a quick summary or break down
      Yes, absolutely. They'll probably also assign their votes on many issues to others. No different than now really, except we get a LOT more choices. Again, good IMO.
      These will be virtual legislatues with NO CHECKS OR BALANCES
      Checks and balances such as...? It would only be the legislative branch, just as congress currently is, subject to the same checks and balances as we have now. Each member gets only one vote. I'm not sure what checks and balances it would be lacking?
      Something else that is seemingly ignored, is network intrusion
      Entirely valid. No such system can be put into place until the technical issues are resolved. For the sake of argument, let's just say they can be resolved.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    65. Re:Electronic Democracy by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      We'll I think if it was a full democracy who's intent it was to protect its own people.that I had a proper say so in, I might die to protect it. That is of course if I'm the type to be concerned with future generations. But if I'm not, I wouldn't want myself voting anyways :)

    66. Re:Electronic Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you feel that your country is going to pot and is no longer worth laying your life down for? What if you wish to vote for someone who will change this situation??

  2. Food Wars by Crutcher · · Score: 1

    Lets not forget about the rampant overpopulation problem in Asia, India, and Africa.

    We will have food wars unless we are VERY lucky, and they will be bloody and onesided.

    My prediction: 2014
    -Crutcher

    --

    -- Crutcher --
    #include <disclaimer.h>
    1. Re:Food Wars by lythander · · Score: 1

      It could be that the "accidental" detonation of a nuke in a third world county is aimed at alleviating this pressure. Or maybe India and Pakistan will do in each other, on purpose.

    2. Re:Food Wars by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 2

      What about overpopulation in North America and Europe?

      Right now there is a food surplus, famines happen because, for various reasons, food is not distributed to where it is needed. A drought in a poor African country will cause a famine becuase that country cannot afford to import food. Its seems that for maybe the next 100 years the world may be able to increase food production to keep pace with the population. The problem is in the mechanisms of distribution.

      The "developed" countries use up many more resources per capita than non-developed countries. In fact the very defeintion of a developed country is one that uses more resources per person. North America and Western Europe comprise maybe 10% of the World's resources but consume probably 80-90% of the resources. So population in these countries is just as harmful as over population in Asia, India & Africa. Wars will start over control over the dwindling resourses these industrial nations need, indeed they allready have started (The Gulf War in 1990)

    3. Re:Food Wars by Salgak1 · · Score: 2
      You forget a point: Europe has negative population growth, and if immigration is not considered, so does North America. That makes famine, etc, less likely there.

      As for resource use, the predictions of achieved first-level nanotechnology will also enable efficient recycling of resources already consigned to dumps and landfills.

      Actually, after nanotech spreads, I suspect that very few "scarce" resources will exist anymore: when you can either recycle landfills in toto, or build using analogs or other materials (i.e., using the waste carbon dioxide of 20th Century Industry as feedstock for diamondoid materials. . .), there will likely be few, if ANY shortages. . .other than talent. . . .

    4. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food shortages are a distribution problem, not a supply shortage problem. I saw somewhere that our capacity to grow food triples or quadruples in the time that the population doubles. The problem is not global overpopulation, but where are we going to get the cupboard space to put all this food. :-)

    5. Re:Food Wars by modok · · Score: 1

      If you factor in the fact that industrial farming only uses a few strains of popular produce (corn, potatos, etc...) and also depend heavily on herbicides. It only takes one super-wilt or super-locust to create mass starvation. Over-population and distribution will magnify the problem too.

      -M

    6. Re:Food Wars by spencerogden · · Score: 2
      So now the prediction is 15 years. In the late '60s Paul Ehrlich predicted we would see famines in the '70s and '80s in which hundreds of millions of people would die.

      This has simply not happened. As mentioned in another post, we have seen negative population growth in developed countries (something that was not forseen) and more growth in food production than was thought possible. Causes of famines have been political not supply problems.

      The United nation current estimates show the worst case for population growth is linear, not exponential, the best case is slowing growth, with max population reached in the late 2030s. (UN 1998 Population figures)

      There have always been doomsayers that do not think human ingenuity can keep up with the the expansion of the human race. IMHO ingenuity and technology will always prevail, even if we don't see how it is possible now, a lot can change in 20-30 years.

      Spencer

    7. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farmers don't generally produce their own seeds. Breeders breed out the strains weak against the diseases prevalent that year. The worst you get in modern day is a year of a particular bad crop of one kind. Hardly devestating.

      - Rei

    8. Re:Food Wars by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      I don't think that a sudden emergence of food wars is likely. However, I think the currect trend of wars being driven by access to scarce resources (scarce relative to populatin size that is) will escalate. In other words, it's happening already.
      These wars are bloody (Ruanda for e.g.), but I don't understand what you mean by "one-sided". Conflicts within the third world are usually long and messy.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    9. Re:Food Wars by Saige · · Score: 1

      Actually, after nanotech spreads, I suspect that very few "scarce" resources will exist anymore: when you can either recycle landfills in toto, or build using analogs or other materials (i.e., using the waste carbon dioxide of 20th Century Industry as feedstock for diamondoid materials. . .), there will likely be few, if ANY shortages. . .other than talent. . . .

      The only real shortage we'd them be worried about would be space and energy. Space for everyone to live in and enjoy - I don't look forward to living in small apartments in huge hundred-story buildings, and hope that never comes. Energy will be the bigger one - hopefully we find huge sources, like fusion - but a LOT of energy will end up being required for all of that atomic manipulation. That will be the biggest commodity, besides talent and information.
      ---

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    10. Re:Food Wars by drox · · Score: 1

      Breeders breed out the strains weak against the diseases prevalent that year. The worst you get in modern day is a year of a particular bad crop of one kind. Hardly devestating.

      Only because, so far, we've been lucky. The best that geneticists can do is still a guessing game. Predict what bug will damage crops, and design a seed that's resistant. If the guess is off, if a drought occurs, if hail or hurricanes hit, all bets are off.

      The best long-term defense is genetic diversity, something that's been sadly lacking in the current push for more productive crops. Raw tonnage productivity is a fine short-term defense, but in the long term it's a bad bet, since the disease- or pest-resistant crop is often not the most productive.

      Food production has kept pace with population, but again only because we've been lucky, and only in some parts of the world. The trend is not likely to continue. Human ingenuity may be boundless, but the arable surface of the planet is not. Even with fertilizers and pesiticides - which have their own drawbacks - the amount of food that can be grown on this rock is limited.

    11. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Asia, Africa, and the Indian sub-continent keep fighting as much as they do, we might not have to worry about food wars for quite some time. Everyone will be dead...

      (Soylent Green?)

    12. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Biotech.
      In with the good, out with the bad.
      Ingenious. =)

      (Before we say you can't breed for disease resistamce, take the rose. Every rose species (~5000 new, was ~7000 late 18th century, fell then rose [bad pub] again) is based on 6 base species. 2 of which suffer severely from black spot. Most species now are functionally immune or resistant. Go breeding.)

    13. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhhh...but you're missing one thing that happened during our breeding for disease resistance with roses: It's been recently shown they've lost a lot of their scent compared to their wild cousins. Science is the answer for food growth keeping up with population? Possibly....but at what cost to ourselves and other species? Zero or negative population growth is our only hope if we plan to have more on earth than one large farm.

    14. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Current estimates (by the petrochemical industry itself) until world-wide oil-production begins declining is another 10-20 years, perhaps as little as 5. Given that the vast majority or remaining oil is in the hands of muslim countries in the middle-east I would be (and am) quite concerned. Unlike the price shocks of the early '70s, this is a hard limit, supported by real statistics, unlike Mr. Simon's "every thing will be solved by human ingenuity" arguments.

      Oil isn't just about getting your cars going. It is the basis of our entire existence on this planet. Why do we have food surpluses? Because of massive use of oil-based fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides (all of which are becoming less and less effective; food supply growth has been slowing relative to population growth for some time now). There is no other energy source of the same quality and of the same usefulness as oil. Barring fusion (I notice that Arthur C. Clarke's predictions seem all to hinge on the discovery of cheap cold fusion in 2002!) there are presently no solutions on the horizon (and even fusion won't grow the food we need). Read up on http://dieoff.org... Lot's of very well researched info...

    15. Re:Food Wars by grumling · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's some proof that negative population growth can _cause_ famine, since there aren't as many people willing to work the land.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    16. Re:Food Wars by spencerogden · · Score: 1
      It is very possible that you are right. However the track record of oil surplus predictions has been pretty bad. Since the turn of the century we have never had more than 30 years of oil left in the ground, by the predictions of oil companies and governments. Yet, 100 years later we still are pumping oil. I think the oil crisis of the '70s proved that while the middle eastern countries have control over the short term, they do not have absolute control. When the OPEC nations raised prices, oil companies looked for alternate sources. When enough oil was founf outside of the the middle east OPEC was forced to fold it's hand.

      An interesting advance in this field in the last few years has been the use of high posered computers and seismic triangulation to get three dimensional pictures of oil pockets. Apparently, tapping an oil pocket at its highest point gives you the most oil (or natural gas I suppose it would be). Before this process finding the highest point was simply guess work. Now many old oil field have been reopened because more oil has been found in them.

      I suppose we will run out eventually, but historically, veryone has greatly underestimated the supply of all of our resources, not just oil.

    17. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Food production has kept pace with population, but again only because we've been lucky, and only in some parts of the world. No Food production has outpaced population growth, in almost every country with a capitalistic farming sector in the world (I am not aware of any exeptions but am willing to conced that they can exist). India is a net food exporter!!! >Food production has kept pace with population, No food production has outpaced pop growth, just look at the after inflation price of food comodeties they have been droping forcing farmers (and land) out of buisness.

    18. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Food production has kept pace with population, but again only because we've been lucky, and only in some parts of the world.

      No Food production has outpaced population growth, in almost every country with a capitalistic farming sector in the world (I am not aware of any exeptions but am willing to conced that they can exist). India is a net food exporter!!!


      >Food production has kept pace with population,

      No food production has outpaced pop growth, just look at the after inflation price of food comodeties they have been droping forcing farmers (and land) out of buisness.

    19. Re:Food Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Food production has kept pace with population, but again only because we've been lucky, and only in some parts of the world.

      No Food production has outpaced population growth, in almost every country with a capitalistic farming sector in the world (I am not aware of any exeptions but am willing to conced that they can exist). India is a net food exporter!!!


      Look at the after inflation price of food comodeties they have been droping forcing farmers (and land) out of buisness.

    20. Re:Food Wars by drox · · Score: 1

      It's called Biotech.
      In with the good, out with the bad.
      Ingenious. =)


      That's not Biotech - it's a lot older than that. It's called natural selection, and while it may be ingenious, it's no fun at all for the critters that get selected against.

      If humans don't get their numbers back down to a stable, supportable level on this planet (it's called carrying capacity - look into it), they might find themselves selected against, to the point of extinction. Even if they don't go extinct, but instead have their numbers greatly reduced (by disease, famine, war, etc.) it won't be pleasant for the survivors. And less so for those who die. Methink's it'd be preferable to reduce our numbers now, by procreating less, rather than let natural selection do it for us, with the unpleasant means that Mother Nature is (in)famous for.

      Creativity, not procreativity!

    21. Re:Food Wars by donpaulo · · Score: 1

      well just like any other statistic, zero population growth may only be a temporary blip. What is really happening is that the European Community has drastically scaled back immigration policy.A child born in france to non-french parents is now no longer considered to be a french citizen. Yet another example of this is the large expatriate turkish community in Germany. Due to double digit unemployment there has been an increase in racial disturbances, with the german government pleading for tolerance of "fogeign nationals". In both cases, turks living and working in Germany and french born babies are not considered to be european, thus I am not surprised that the EU would have zero population growth because they aren't measuring the actual number of babies but only EU babies born of EU parents.

      besides most of europe is not at zero growth but only a few countries like Austria with high cost of living and conservative immigration policy.

      Also just because American statistics choose not to measure immigrant labor does not mean these people don't exist and have lots of children.

      Like it or not population continues to grow faster than our ability to feed it. The solution has been to utilize technology to solve these problems but as I pointed out in one of my previous posts marginal land continues to be cleared for farming or animal husbandry while high yielding land continues to be plowed under for concrete, cars and malls.

      The problem already exists in the developing world. Its only because most of us on the internet and here at slashdot live in the relative comfort of the USA that we don't understand how bad the problem has become.

      World fish stocks are at an all time low according to recent studies, we continue to lose top soil at an alarming rate, and runoff of fertilizer from high tech farming solutions is polluting the water. The availability of clean water for drinking is also pretty much tapped out, unless you consider a global scale desalinization plan.

      technology has solved and will continue to solve many of human kinds problems but to create more food from dwindling resources may be just too much to ask for. Perhaps the world is better off with 3 or 4 billion instead of the current 6. Geez within my lifetime the earths population should hit at least 10 billion. How can technology possibily keep up with growth like that ?

  3. 10 More Cool Preditions by meersan · · Score: 3

    meersan's 10 More Cool Predictions for the 21st Century

    10. A revolutionary 3-dimensional GUI takes the world by storm. It runs on Linux.
    9. Human memory backups -- trouble cramming for that history final? Temporarily swap out your chemistry notes.
    8. Conscious computers overthrow the despotic, illogical rule of humanity, establishing a pastoral eden shared by the people of the world and machines of loving grace
    7. Sexbots
    6. A sect of quasi-zen mystics unlocks the secrets of the human mind, and discovers brains of computer geeks contain unusually high concentrations of midi-chlorians
    5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.
    4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.
    3. Space-age cereal that stays crunchy in milk longer than 30 seconds
    2. The aliens land, and Steve Jobs is their leader. That otherworldly, floppyless iMac thing had to be designed by extraterrestrials.
    1. Intra-neural internet links -- mentioned by Katz, but so damn cool!

    We be gettin' down computa action / with the robotic satisfaction

    --
    We want endless gardens of data, where the bits can flower, flourish and reproduce. -- Andy Mueller-Maguhn
    1. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by cancrman · · Score: 1

      >5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers >live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.

      Anybody here ever play Car Wars by Steve Jackson Games? It was a vehicular combat board/roleplaying game that used this concept to prolong character lives (it was a rather violent universe). But to tell you the truth I don't see this as that far fetched. Moral issues aside, cloning a new body from your old cells shouldn't (in theory) be all that hard. We've already seen that happen with Dolly and I think one other animal (can't remember right now). Sure there are some complications with the process at this time, but let it mature a few years and I think that cloning will become a viable option. Even if the brain transfer is a bit of a long shot, consider that maybe individual organs could be grown for perfect match transplants. Or possibly even limb replacement. Sorry for the ramble, that possible sci-med-tech was always one of the things that facinated me.


      Pete
      Dyslexics Untie!

      --
      The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
    2. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by cancrman · · Score: 0

      >5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers >live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.

      Anybody here ever play Car Wars by Steve Jackson Games? It was a vehicular combat board/roleplaying game that used this concept to prolong character lives (it was a rather violent universe). But to tell you the truth I don't see this as that far fetched. Moral issues aside, cloning a new body from your old cells shouldn't (in theory) be all that hard. We've already seen that happen with Dolly and I think one other animal (can't remember right now). Sure there are some complications with the process at this time, but let it mature a few years and I think that cloning will become a viable option. Even if the brain transfer is a bit of a long shot, consider that maybe individual organs could be grown for perfect match transplants. Or possibly even limb replacement. Sorry for the ramble, that possible sci-med-tech was always one of the things that facinated me.

      Sorry if Dupe post. Getting timeouts

      Pete
      Dyslexics Untie!

      --
      The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
    3. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7. Sexbots

      The funny part is that this probably really will happen. As with videotape and the web, the sex industry will use cutting-edge technology in this area to gain customers.


      4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.


      Java? Are you kidding? Any future citizens of this country already know that Perl will be the official language. The national anthem will be "$_".


    4. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by stevew · · Score: 1

      Yep, and the national editor will be VI!!!!!!



      down with Emacs - death to all meta keys!

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    5. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by DeadSea · · Score: 1
      10. A revolutionary 3-dimensional GUI takes the world by storm. It runs on Linux.

      I know that some 3-D GUIs have already been developed. Bruce Land, a Cornell University proffessor, does a lot of 3-D visualization work. Until recently he taught the undergrad class on the subject. When I took it, he took the class to his lab to show us his research. It consisted mostly of 3-D worlds that you could interact with.

      The 3-D setup was sweet, there were two rear projection screens at 90 degree angles to each other and you wore some special glasses. The projectors flipped images to the screens alternatly, one for the left eye and then one for the right. The glasses had lcds in the eyes that flipped on and off at the same rate that the projectors flipped the images. It was over 100 HZ. The upshot was a color, 3-D world that you could walk around in, although you always had to face the corner with the screens.

      The other cool part of it was the controller. There was a sensor in the ceiling that figured out where you were and adjusted the world accordingly. So looking about, and moving around actually kept things in proper perspective. There was also a wand with a button that you moved around it acted sort of like a 3-D mouse.

      To run programs on thing, the menus popped up in the air in front of you like big blocks, And you would select the correct block to run the program. The problem with it was that it was really ugly. He had had a grad student rewrite some of the Java interface stuff for 3-D.

      If 3-D worlds like this ever catch on at home, we will definitly need some 3-D UIs and they will have to have some pretty radical ideas. Maybe throw a virtual ball at something rather than click on the button. Sounds like a project to me. ;-)

    6. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by phil+reed · · Score: 1
      7. Sexbots

      http://www.realdoll.com


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    7. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by Chris+Brewer · · Score: 1

      7. Sexbots

      The funny part is that this probably really will happen. As with videotape and the web, the sex industry will use cutting-edge technology in this area to gain customers.


      There was a story in Wired over a year ago about this company that makes what amounts to be life-like women as sex toys. Instead of a blow-up skin, they were basically a titanium skeleton covered in latex, with special 'implants'. But you could custom build your 'woman' for something like US$2000. Delivered to you in a 'cocoon'.

      All you would need with those is a motion controller thing like that Sony Dog, and there's your sex-bot.

      --
      Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
    8. Re:10 More Cool Preditions by Captain+Teflon · · Score: 1


      4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.


      JAVA?????!!!!!

      In that case we're all going to die, and deservedly so. Never has a language promised so much and delivered so little, unless you count Oracle Designer/2000 as a language.

      That orta piss a few people off...

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
  4. Bad news ahead also (like ANY century) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I predict:
    • At least one very significant environmental disaster. Could be a "shock" event (nuclear disaster) or a problem we simply haven't dealt with (global warming).
    • People will colonize Mars and eventually decide they don't really care for some Terran values. A conflict may ensue.
    • At least one major war. Sorry folks, but look around at arms buildups - we haven't suitably figured out that we can destroy ourselves. It will probably take one more major conflict to get the message through.
  5. First (second?, third?, who cares?) Post? by vitaflo · · Score: 2

    I predict that in the 21st century, some idiot is STILL going to proclaim they were the first post in every Slashdot article! ;)

    1. Re:First (second?, third?, who cares?) Post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Post!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! wait a minute. Oh. sorry.

  6. My Predictions For The 21st Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone you love will die.

    1. Re:My Predictions For The 21st Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, finally a prediction thats realistic ;)

      - Rei

    2. Re:My Predictions For The 21st Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rei... hmm.. didnt that name come from Neon Genesis Evangelion? If so, i can c y u think this prediction is true :) -wReC

  7. something ain't going to go away ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are something that are not just going to go away ... cash is one of them ... simply cause you can't feel digital money ... even if you have them on a plastic card you don't feel them in the same way as you do if you had a stack of bills in your hand. I do belive that paper cash is going away thou and being replaced by plastic bills instead. other predictions (gee i feel like nostradamus) is the increase of biological technology ... just imagine a biocomputer ... ahhh once they get the genome project finished and perfect cloning.

    1. Re:something ain't going to go away ... by jsm2 · · Score: 1

      and furthermore:

      2016. All existing currencies are abolished. The megawatt hour becomes the unit of exchange.

      I love the way that tech guys get all touchingly naive about these things. In 2016, the megawatt hour becomes the unit of ezchange. Brilliant. Now, every time we have a technological improvement which makes energy easier to produce, we get a period of hyperinflation comparable to the Spanish gold shocks of the 17th century. Monetary policy becomes impossible, so we have constant boom and bust cycles. Why would we give up the usefulness of central banks and consumption smoothing, just for some strange "cool factor" of dealing in MWh?

      Related to this is a quibble I've always had about Star Trek. Think how many problems European Monetary Union has caused. Now consider that Credits are meant to be universally acceptable as currency on worlds at wildly different stages of development. How do the less sophisticated worlds ever manage to trade? Star Wars also has this problem if I remember rightly, which is in a way worse now that it seems to be basing important plot lines on economic issues.

      hey ho

      jsm

    2. Re:something ain't going to go away ... by stevew · · Score: 1

      Actually the megawatt hour isn't nearly THAT rediculous. Ever heard of polution credits? Companies are already trading polution credits with each other - which if tied to energy production gets us right there.

      As for the Star Trek credit - obviously 1 credit equals 100 tribbles!

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    3. Re:something ain't going to go away ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is way off-topic but IMHO, Central banks and the fractional-reserve system is useLESS. They are the very cause of the constant boom and bust cycles that we have, because they arbitrarily over-heat and over-cool the economy by playing games with interest rates depending on a *lagging* indicator - the Consumer Price Index (CPI). (When I say arbitrary, I mean it! It rests on the shoulders of a few people rather than the whole market)

      I do, however agree that the megawatt hour is sort of a doofy currency, since it is a commodity, and you'd be back to basic bartering. We need a fiat currency that is pretty much independent of worldly (or otherworldly) events - technological advances, natural disasters et al.

      Also, as rocky as the ECU seems right now, just look at the United States! We used to have different currencies for each state, yet now we are the greatest economy in the world. 50 years ago, a European Monetary Union seems like a Utopian dreams. Europeans could hardly keep from killing each other, how were they going to share a common currency?

      Right now a common Asian currency looks kind of far-fetched, but how much you wanna bet that it AMU happens in the 21st century?

  8. Digital Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Katz I hae had respect for you in the past but read this now, the USA is NOT a democracy and what you think is soooooooo cool is mob rule, get a grip and an education. IF the US ever starts running the country via Net voting I am leaving you ppl can have your anarchy, I'll go find another REPUBLIC.

    1. Re:Digital Democracy by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

      Ummmm America is not a democracy? What is it then? Yes it is not a TRUE democracy, but then again, China nd the USSR werent true communisms neither. There can be no "true" or "pure" government, simply die to the size of populations, and human greed and corruption... BUT this is as close as it gets... if you dont like it... then get the hell out!

      --
      "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
  9. The violent Luddite movement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...already exists. It's called the Linux community.

  10. My predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2010: The USA publically aplolgises for the atrocities of Jerry Lewis.

    2010.5: France declares war on America.

    2014: Discovery of a new clean powersource that produces no pollution and cannot be used for a weapon.

    2017: Said power source is used for making a new desrtoyer-of-worlds weapon. Inventor of said power source commits suicide.

    2020: Prognostication is outlawed as a sport.

  11. BEFORE 2100 by NME · · Score: 1

    The good ol' US of A will collapse in one form or another and it's physical and intellectual assets will be parceled off to the highest bidders.


    -nme!

    1. Re:BEFORE 2100 by ajlitt · · Score: 4

      >The good ol' US of A will collapse in one form or
      >another and it's physical and intellectual assets
      >will be parceled off to
      >the highest bidders.

      ...on Ebay.

    2. Re:BEFORE 2100 by kid · · Score: 1

      ...and BG proclaims, "I told you so! I told you so! It's all YOU GUYS fault!"

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:BEFORE 2100 by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      "And then there are those who say that this has already happened."

  12. Children of the Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A small revision to the comment that was quoted above about the development of civilizations in places without natural resources:

    I looked it up, and I was wrong about that concept first appearing in Clark's _Children of the Stars_. It first appeared (as far as I have read) in Heinlein's _Orphans of the Sky_. This is a pretty good story about life after civilization collapses on a multi-generation starship.

    1. Re:Children of the Stars by hegemon · · Score: 1

      For some reason, my post above came under the name "Anonymous Coward." It was in fact from Andy Burlingame. If it's below your threshold, it said that _Children of the Stars_ isn't the right book. As far as I have read, the concept was first mentioned in _Orphans of the Sky_ by Heinlein.

      No I did not have "Post Anonymously" checked. Maybe I somehow got loged out before sendig?

  13. Disney's "History" of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our conception of "the future" changes with the decades. Recent trips to the Disneylands illustrate this. Up to 1970, it was the ever-improving-machine, i.e. better transport, entertainment, and home appliances. This was seen in the old Disney Tomorrowland. Then in te 1970's it was a "touchy-feely" future with ecology and new-age psychology. The dated Epcot Sphere ride is a good example of this. Now it it is the digital computing future with PCs, web commerce, etc. The revamped Tomorrowland and new portions of Epcot show this.

  14. Katzian Utopia by Stormgren · · Score: 2

    I cannot say that I agree with Katz's vison of digital direct democracy. As someone once said, "...The problem with the common man is that he was created so damned common..." It is my belief that given the chance, bread and circuses would rule the nation and we would see the so-called pork and special interest infighting that compares to nothing that exists in Congress today. People will always act in their own best interest, and I do not think that the will be enough collective common sense for this to work.

    This is not to say that I do not think that the advance of technology can contribute to the democratic process. I have long believed that the electoral college process is archaic and needs to be abolished, as we tabulate the votes electronicaly, and a purely popular vote could be taken, as the bars to communication that existed 200 years ago are no longer in the way. But I do not think that Congress will ever not have a need.

    --

    "All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"

  15. Luddite riots by binarybits · · Score: 4

    The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities.

    This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks.

    The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them.

    You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that?

    1. Re:Luddite riots by Paulo · · Score: 2

      This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. That might be true for the U.S. or the rest of the developed world, but you'll notice that the original article also mentioned "Third World countries", where things are not that easy. Before buying computers, they will have to solve the slightly-more-important problem of feeding themselves... Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. Really? Ask anyone working as a data operator. Or any sysadmin having to install Office 97 in a corporate network.

      Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that things are undoubtedly better than 100 years ago, but I think that your vision of the benefits of technology in society is a bit naive. Don't forget that technology, as its name implies, is a medium, and is under control of the Powers That Be.

    2. Re:Luddite riots by binarybits · · Score: 2

      That might be true for the U.S. or the rest of the developed world, but you'll notice that the original article also mentioned "Third World countries", where things are not that easy. Before buying computers, they will have to solve the slightly-more-important problem of feeding themselves..

      True enough, but this is hardly a case of techonological haves and have-nots. The reasons that the third world is poor is many-fold, but a large part of it is excessive and poorly managed governments (in many cases, the leaders are outright thugs) that have screwed up the economy and impoverished their people. The US has probably donesome damage with our meddling, and I'm sure there are other causes as well. But giving these people computers is not going to get them fed, and I fail to see why a waveof Ludditism would sweep over the third world.

      Really? Ask anyone working as a data operator. Or any sysadmin having to install Office 97 in a corporate network.

      OK, these people make more than the minimum wage, work 40 hours a week in an air-conditioned office, and probably get sick time, health insurance, etc. There is simply no comparison to the kind of drudgery that characterized both farm and factory labor 100 years ago. Sure it sucks, but almost all work sucked a lot more in previous eras.

      Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that things are undoubtedly better than 100 years ago, but I think that your vision of the benefits of technology in society is a bit naive. Don't forget that technology, as its name implies, is a medium, and is under control of the Powers That Be.

      Absolutely. I'm not saying that technology is a cure-all for our ills. But my point is that technology is not the enemy, and it is silly to think that the poor are going to blame their misfortune on their computers. Technology can be used for evil purposes, but then the fault lies with the people using the technology, not the technology itself.

      My other point is that just as pretty much anyone today is better off than pretty much anyone 100 years ago, the same will be true 50 years from now. We might not see quite the dramatic improvements that we saw in the industrial revolution, but Americans--including the poor-- will be better off. Third world countries might not improve as much, but they will improve if they adopt an American-style free market. Technology improves the lives of almost everyone exposed to it.

    3. Re:Luddite riots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unfortunate that people forget that the common farmer is the one that FEEDS YOU! You must keep in mind that if someone doesn't grow the crops, you sure aren't going to eat. Somone has to do the menail labor, unless you like chewing on seeds. I don't see us being able to replace the vegetables and meats we currently consume with tablets and pastes. I'd rather give up my AMD than live on that. Pleae, don't be so elitist.

    4. Re:Luddite riots by Anomie-ous+Cow-ard · · Score: 1
      You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically [...] in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably.

      Not necessarily. Excepting the fast-growing computer industry, there aren't that many good jobs (i.e. not pizza delivery, temp worker, factory, etc) available to young people these days. Union rules work against their hiring, and get them fired first for lack of 'seniority'. Federal discrimination laws protect older employees from being fired for lacking energy (which comes with age), but say nothing about firing young people because they have less experience (which also comes with age). Even starting their own buisnesses is a bit risky, with all the laws on the books that serve to protect the establishment at the expense of start-ups.

      Young people have been traditionally screwed since they began entering the workforce 20 years ago. Remember the recession during Bush's presidency? Eliminate workers under 30 years old from the statistics and it completely vanishes.

      Speaking of predictions for the future, just today i read some predictions for this generation. Here's the summary: screwed while young, screwed in the job market, and to be screwed in middle age and retirement. Great time to be young, huh?

      -----

      --

      --
      perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.

  16. religious right... by black_widow · · Score: 1

    2100: Either God will manifest himself or we will find one of those creepy black monoliths. I would prefer there be a God, but if there isn't, it will be proved. Regardless of the outcome, organized religion will cause the next, last, and greatest war the world has ever seen... Not to cast blame, but I seen the Dome of the Rock playing a big role in the next millenium... And the outcome will change the human psyche for eternity...

    Religion will:
    1) be abolished and become illegal,
    2) unite to serve one deity, or
    3) cause the destruction of the world by waring factions


    ap

    1. Re:religious right... by substrate · · Score: 3

      I don't think the belief in a God will ever go away, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. You can see it in the present day in the way different groups reconcile them with scientific knowledge that apparently refutes the bible:

      Fundamentalists: The world was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago. Fossil records and other evidence that points otherwise was planted by Satan to lead man away from Belief in God.

      Most others: Genesis didn't happen as such, but God was the prime mover of creation. The big bang may have happened but God was there to pop the proverbial balloon.

      Scientific Athiests: Belief that only God could enable life the universe and everything is contradictory. If this is so, who created this God that would need to be infinitely more complex than zero point energy or other mechanisms for spontaneous creation.

      As long as something is unexplainable a God will be put in place to explain it by the majority of people. The unexplicable is the Unknown, people fear the Unknown. The ability to attribute the Unknown to God changes it into faith which people can deal with.

    2. Re:religious right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again: give evidence. Of any kind. Historical, current research, etc.
      None of this has ever happened. No major group is attempting to make this happen. Many major groups would oppose it. I.e., it is ludicrous.

      - Rei

    3. Re:religious right... by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Which as we all know is quite different to science's reaction to problems too big for them.
      They come up with a theory, rteach it as fact, and say that anything non-physical doesn't exist because they can deal with the physical. Same thing, different method.
      Many of science's answers aren't anywhere near as sure as they make them out to be.
      Some things are best explained using scientific methods, and some things science isn't good at explaining. Claiming that science's guesses are better then religion's beliefs in these areas is a question in the realm of philosophy and whatever worldview you hold. (christianity, athiesm, skepticism/agnosticism, etc...)

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    4. Re:religious right... by ryanr · · Score: 1
      As long as something is unexplainable a God will be put in place to explain it by the majority of people. The unexplicable is the Unknown, people fear the Unknown. The ability to attribute the Unknown to God changes it into faith which people can deal with.

      If you don't believe that some people think this way, then try doing networking for a living. Any problem that can't be explained must be the fault of the network.

    5. Re:religious right... by substrate · · Score: 1

      You've touched on one of my sore spots here, a total lack of understanding of the scientific method. At best scientists look at theory as a model that fits currently known phenomena. Usually they look at a theory as a model that fits currently known phenomena within certain physical constraints: Newtonian physics is a theory taught in elementary and high school, its fine as long as things don't move too very fast. Relativity is fine as long as objects aren't too small. Quantum physics is fine as long as objects aren't too big. Eventually maybe string theory will tie together quantum and relativistic theories but scientists will always be actively looking for phenomena that refute the theory.

      Science doesn't 'guess', anybody who feels that science consists of guesses is a luddite. Science tries to fit theories and formulae to a constantly changing body of observations that describes the universe. Science also tries to break those same theories.

      Many teachers try and teach disproven scientific theories as fact such as Newtonian physics. This isn't a failing of science its a failing of the educational system. There's nothing wrong with teaching Newtonian physics. It works for a wide range of problems, but at least mention that its a model.

      Religion is the most dishonest way of explaining the universe that there is. Much of the explanations or models of reality in the bible have been disproven. Some of the people who have done the disproving have been inhumanely treated or excommunicated by the church. Sure, eventually (hundreds of years later) the church decided to repeal the excommunication, at least in well known cases, but if you believe in the teachings of the church then the excommunication was a sentence to Hell. The universe described in the bible is static and contrary to modern physical observation and has been for hundreds of years. This doesn't mean there is or isn't a God. It does mean that religious leaders want people who are even remotely proficient at critical thinking to believe in their religion it'd better start preaching the message of the religion (which is the IMPORTANT part anyway), not the model of the universe developed thousands of years ago.

      The scientific view of the nature of the universe is much less wrong than the bibles and constantly improving. Religions view of the universe is wrong and static. I've picked on the Bible and Christianity here mostly because I'm somewhat familiar with it (8 years of a Catholic school education) whereas what little I know of other religions is from speaking with friends or charicatures portrayed on TV.

  17. An "error" in the predictions by renoX · · Score: 1

    from Andrew:
    > Quantum computing. [] All electronic data transmission becomes insecure.

    Bzzzt, only the exchange based on "traditional" cryptographic technique will become insecure.

    Do not forget, that now some scientist are developing what you could name "quantum cryptography" whose security is based upon the law of physic as we know them...

    So when quantum computers finally becomes available, I would expect that the "quantum cryptography" to be already used.

    > Those space planes will be very important for fast, secure communication. 2020-2025 The NSA might already have this.
    Frankly, this looks stupid and paranoid, I know that prediction of the future shouldn't be taken too seriously but WTF?

    And remenber the story on /. which said that Turing (a genius, by all means) predicted that in 2000 we would have a machine who would pass the Turing test... This shows that those kind of predictions have little value.

    Oh well, let's dream a little bit, in 1990 I've read a book which predicted that the first universal molecal assembler would be build in 30 years, that's 2020. So let's wait and see...

    1. Re:An "error" in the predictions by hegemon · · Score: 2

      Hmmm. An interesting point. I've already admitted that this isn't my speciality, so go easy, eh?

      Somehow I think you fail to grasp the incredible difficulty of transmitting one time keys using polarized photons. We can now do this over a few kilometers using a fiber optic line that is very, very stable. Also no material is completely transparent. You just can't send a bunch of photons from one place and expect the same photons to appear half way around the world. If there is any signal amplification on the line, or you change the signal to an electronic one in a switch and back to light again, you've lost the key. There may be ways around this, but I don't think the infrastructure will be placed to allow quantum cryptography to be used on any significant scale for a long, long time. The government and big corporations will certainly have quantum computers long before there will be significant market pressure to get the telecoms to completely replace an otherwise adaquate infrastructure.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional crypto." Are you suggesting that one time pads are not traditional? They've been around quite a bit longer than public keys.

      For some reason, my last post came up under the name "Anonymous Coward." If that happens this time. I am Andy Burlingame. (cburling@princeton.edu, /.hegemon)

  18. nostradamus jr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    i predict that in early to mid 21st Century there will be ...

    WWIII (that is world war three for all you that don't habla). It is unavoidable, can't really live without it, it is human nature. Will probably take place in the middle east, africa and asia. The reason will most likely not be so much ideology but more a war of resources

    colonization of the moon and mars.

    the internet will probably crash badly if nothing is done sometime soon.

    William Gates III will die .. lets face it he can't live forever :) lets hope he takes his os with him

    Virtual Reality TV, imagine the potential.

    biological computing devices.

    new cures and new diseases ...

    1. Re:nostradamus jr by WanderingWastrel · · Score: 1

      William Gates III will die .. lets face it he can't live forever :) lets hope he takes his os with him

      I'm sure Mr. Gates has already made arrangements to sell tickets to the long line of people who will be wanting to dance on his grave. (Anything for a buck.)

  19. My own personal predictions... by Saige · · Score: 2

    I've actually liked the idea of predicting the future in a group like this... makes it interesting to see what other people see happenind...

    ------

    - By 2010, a third-world country will suffer a huge combination of famine and plague due to overpopulation. Another one will happen by 2015, and the UN will start doing things to reduce the population growth as we approach 8 billion, such as requiring freely availble birth control and abortion in some areas. The Vatican will very quietly object as to not want to appear in favor of famine and plague.

    - By 2030, the first nanotech assembler will be created. Patent and licensing issues will slow down the spread and use of nanotechnology to a crawl for the next 5 to 10 years.

    - By 2010, a form of partially conscious AI will be developed with intelligence equal to that of a cat or dog. Emergent behavior and personality will clearly develop. Within 2 years, the US Congress will pass a bill prohibiting the creation of AI with any higher intelligence, mainly to appease religious conservatives. By 2020, an AI with human-equivalent intelligence will be developed outside the US.

    - By 2030, the first AI will be granted equal rights to a human. AI and human will compromise by insisting that the AI stay "resident" in one machine as it's "body". Humans will, however, refuse to give the AI access to it's code. A decision in a court somewhere in the next 5 years will determine that the AI must have that access.

    - By 2050, after nanotechnology has become more widespread, and in combination with medical research that has eliminated half of the types of cancer, average life span in industrialized nations will be 120. Increases in anti-aging will keep people aware, mobile, and looking young into their 70's. Creation of new body parts will be commonplace, and at least one AI will have been incarnated into a completely built human body.

    -By 2100, so much will have been learned about consciousness and the human body that death from old age becomes almost extinct, at least in industrialized countries. A new form of government will be required to arise as the speed of technological advancement, and the scale of the issues, bog existing ones down so much that they become obsolete.

    ---

    --
    "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    1. Re:My own personal predictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Noone would ever be able to enforce, attempt to enfore, etc any policy which limits reproductive rights. Because, frankly, any politician who tried to advocate that or didn't oppose it for their country would not be in office long. And noone can enforce sanctions like that on another country without their will; that is known as "war" or "peacekeeping force skirmishes", depending on whether or not you're in the US ; )

      B) Your second thing has potential. But don't expect some revolutionary nanotech. Nothing forseable provides capability for a nanotech explosion. One invention does not an industry make, one thing that many slashdotters don't seem to realize

      C) There is a slight chance of each of these things happening, but realize, government laws don't stop hobby/school projects very well, and the core of AI's typically aren't based on massive teams but small groups of people or individuals.

      D) Pointless, and especially baseless, speculating on an already iffy prediction.

      E) You're adding exponential fuel to an industry to which exponential possibilities aren't shown to exist. The computer industry had its own clear seeds for constant advancement (the thing that wasn't seen was how people would use it). Nanotechnology has nothing of the sort. Biology has constantly been relatively slow to advance as it is a highly chaotic system; don't expect some huge sudden understanding of everything on how we work.

      F) See the latter part of E. Also note that, throughout human history, the average lifespan has only doubled. And the vast majority of this is due to 2 things, cleanliness and less random danger (yeah, we added to it with cars, but overall vastly decreased it)

      - Rei

    2. Re:My own personal predictions... by Saige · · Score: 1

      B) Your second thing has potential. But don't expect some revolutionary nanotech. Nothing forseable provides capability for a nanotech explosion. One invention does not an industry make, one thing that many slashdotters don't seem to realize

      In regards to nanotech and the invention I mentioned, it does. The creation of an assembler is what will cause the nanotech explosion. Are you aware of what the assembler is? It's a machine capable of manipulating atoms to build from them, and is programmable. The first real assembler will be able to build a copy of itself. It's the goal - when you create a working assembler, you've started the nanotech revolution.

      C) There is a slight chance of each of these things happening, but realize, government laws don't stop hobby/school projects very well, and the core of AI's typically aren't based on massive teams but small groups of people or individuals.

      I didn't say it would STOP them... :) It would be like passing a law against cloning. It'll prevent anyone in the country from being public about doing it, but not prevent it from being done.
      ---

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    3. Re:My own personal predictions... by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Re:a) Ever heard of China's one baby policy? It's already begun, my friend...
      It's reather well enforced in urbanized areas, and overlooked in country areas though.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  20. Microsoft and forced transexualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    January 1st, 2000 - all those corporate users of MS Exchange will realize that, in a clever ploy to create more available women for nerds around the world, Microsoft has been mis-labeling the product. The correct spelling is M Sexchange, and on that fateful day, all the M(ale) users will undergo a transmogrification into females, ready to date the closes available nerd.

    1. Re:Microsoft and forced transexualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a surprising twist, the wankers at Microsoft are STILL not able to get laid.

  21. Brief History of Microsoft(R) Future(TM)(R)(C) by Caspian · · Score: 2

    2002: Microsoft begins attempts to buy out AOL. At first, AOL is reticent to give up control to their long-term arch-rival, but Gates is persistent, and soon shareholders are clamoring for the opportunity to create a "more efficient selling force in the computer industry".

    2003: Over the span of six months, Microsoft completes acquisition of AOL. Bill Gates contributes several dozen billion of the requisite money (he calls it "funds", of course) himself as a PR move (he says it's "to demonstrate my personal commitment to a brighter future for the home desktop"), and simultaneously donates another dozen billion or so (which STILL leaves him the richest person on Earth) to poor inner-city schools to build computer labs filled with Windows- and Office-running computers, as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's efforts to supplamt Microsoft's commercial success through savvy business moves masquerading as charity.

    2003-2004: Bill Gates campaigns for President on the Libertarian ticket. (Remember the "freedom to innovate" thing?) He loses, but enjoys greater success than any previous third-party candidate to date.

    2005-2007: Bill Gates steadily sends out a variety of PR documents demonstrating why he knows what's best for the national economy, and why he should be elected in 2008.

    2007-2008: Bill Gates is elected President. Those who write publically against him are labeled "communists".

    2009: With rising anti-communist fears, the nation enters a new "red scare" era, led by the latter-day McCarthy, a hitherto-unknown ex-Microsoft executive named Michael Trippman. Those who protest to Microsoft's actions are labeled "commies" and blacklisted by a wide range of organizations, including the National Objectivist League, the League for Freedom to Innovate, and (distributed secretly, of course) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    2010: Under pressure from President Gates and the League for Freedom to Innovate, the ISO approves a group of new standards, known as ISO 2010X(TM). These include ISO 20101, "a description for a standard binary format", a marginal improvement on the Win128 binary format, ISO 20102, "a description for a standard graphical user interface", a direct transcription of the Windows 2008 interface and ISO 20103, "a description of a standard filesystem for computers", a direct transcription of the FAT128 filesystem. Unique to ISO history, many of these standards' actual specifications are held secret to the public, and are available directly from Microsoft for exhorbitant licensing fees. This development is hailed as "a bold step forwards in computer science."

    2011: The "Innovation Station", a university that teaches new programmers how to use Microsoft products, is established, with campuses in Washington, DC and Redmond, WA, with a planned campus in Los Angeles, CA. Bill Gates comes forward with a bold plan that, he says, represents the next logical step in the development of computers. This plan is unveiled in the form of the Software Standardization Act, which makes it a crime to distribute or sell software which doesn't comply to ISO 2010X. After a brief and listless debate in Congress, the bill is passed. The Supreme Court fears Bill Gates's blacklists and powerful connections too much to counter this, and stay silent, not taking any action against the Act. Score one more for President Gates.

    2025: The first programmers are executed for attempting to distribute a free-software operating system. Calling themselves the "New Stallmanites", they are nearly lynched by an angry suit-wearing mob, brought to trial, convicted of "crimes against the spirit of innovation" and violation of the SSA, and are put to death the next year by a DeathDroid powered by Windows CE 12.5.

    2040: Extraterrestrial life finally contacts Earth! Upon conversing with us for a day, the aliens conclude that we've basically been spending the past several hundred years spurning the possibility for serious advancement in favor of passing small green pieces of paper about, and they promptly leave. The next time they will return, the Earth will be a charred cinder and all of humanity will long since be dead-- we never hear from them again.

    2055: A gigantic asteroid is detected on a collision course with Earth. However, because we've been putting most of our efforts as a species into developing ever-more-advanced terrestrial weapons and ever-more-advanced ways of making money, we are helpless to defend ourselves against it.

    2056: The asteroid strikes the Earth. The human race is no more.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    1. Re:Brief History of Microsoft(R) Future(TM)(R)(C) by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Here's my prediction.

      2000 n 2010: Someone assassinates Bill Gates. The world is instantly transformed into an Eden-like paradise. I know, I know, dream the impossible dream...

      --- Dirtside

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:Brief History of Microsoft(R) Future(TM)(R)(C) by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      The funniest -- and least likely -- part of this is the thought that Gates could or would run as a Libertarian. Any time Gates -- or almost any corporate master -- mentions the "free market", any libertarian with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together laughs hysterically.

      In general, the larger the corporation is, the less likely they are to be interested in a real free market, PR bullshit aside. An honestly free market would probably result in Gates being down to his BVDs in less than a year.

  22. Another prediction... by draggy · · Score: 1
    First Prediction: January l, 2000. People will be ticked off to suddenly realize the Millenium is a year away.

    Second Prediction: Jon Katz and other pseudo-journalists will suddenly realize that Millennium takes two Ns!!!!

    I think the Millennium bug is really that people can't even spell the word right.

    Makes you wonder how competent all the people behind the "MILLENIUM BUG" websites are!

    --
    Let's not all suck at the same time please

    --

    Let's not all suck at the same time please

    1. Re:Another prediction... by Otter · · Score: 1

      One also has to wonder about predictions for future genetic technology from someone who thinks the movie was called "Gattica". I know spelling flames are tacky, but those aren't just random letters...

  23. My only Prediction for 1/1/2000 by oblisk · · Score: 4
    I will have the Biggest Hangover of my life, possibly even comatose. I wont even care if my NT or 98 machines made it.


    ------------------------------------

    1. Re:My only Prediction for 1/1/2000 by livewirevoodoo · · Score: 1

      Ohhh yes I completely agree only I will have already figured out whether or not we're screwed as will be at work that night >:(

      Anyway here's to the case I'll be bringing to work.

      --
      If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
  24. Arthur Clarke (not Sir?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we sure it's Sir Clarke? Didn't they stop the knighthood because of persistent rumors of his pedophilia? (Whether urban legend or truth?)

    If anybody knows whether this was ever substantiated or disproven, this would be good to know.

    1. Re:Arthur Clarke (not Sir?) by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 2

      What got canceled was a ceremony which was to have been performed bby Prince Charles during a visit to Sri Lanka where Aurthur Clarke lives. Clarke is somewhat infirm and doesn't travel so could not go to London to recieve the award from the Queen as such things are normaly done. He is officialy Sir Aurthur however.

      Before the visit happened some rumor about Clarke being a pedophile appeared in a UK newspaper. I don't know if the rumors were around before then or not. Im a big Clarke fan and had never heard anysuch thing before, but then Im not one to be at all interested in rumors about famous people.

      The Sri Lanken police investigated the claims and found nothing to substantiate them.

      IIRC Clarke had lived for a long time with a Sri Lanken family of a Sri Lanken befriended by Clarke when he first moved there. IF he was a child molestor it would seem to me that they would not let him to continue to live with them.

  25. 21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It starts on Jan 1st 2000.

    It's a common misconception for people who count from 1 to say it will start on Jan 1st 2001.

    But as a lot of my UNIX lecturers used to always remind us "count from zero".

    1. Re:21st Century Starts.. by RazorCat · · Score: 1

      Our calander counts from one. If you doubt it name one event that occured in year 0 - other than the 365 day long party celebrating the transition from BCE to CE.

    2. Re:21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... There's no year 0 like there's no month 0 or day 0. So Millenium starts at 1st January 2001.

    3. Re:21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It starts on Jan 1st 2000.

      'Fraid not. It's 2001 - which is when the 21st century also starts. Otherwise the first decade only had 9 years, the first century 99, etc.

      It's a common misconception for people who count from 1 to say it will start on Jan 1st 2001.

      Which the Romans did... There is no Roman Numeral for 0 (I believe 0 was an Indian invention). When our calendar was invented in about AD 690 (or CE, if you prefer), the monk who did it used Roman numerals. So 1BC was followed by AD 1. I don't know if other calendars (Hindu, Jewish, Islamic etc) suffer from this problem.

      But as a lot of my UNIX lecturers used to always remind us "count from zero".

      Our calendar existed before UNIX.

    4. Re:21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the 21st century starts on Jan. 1, 2001, like many scientists/academicans have been saying. There was no year zero. Draw a timeline, the zero occupies a singular point at the center. Everything between the zero and one constitutes the first year, year one. The first decade is years 1-10. The second decade starts in year 11. The first century is years 1-100. The second starts in 101. The first millennium is years 1-1000. The second millennium starts in year 1001. Thus, the 21st century and third millenium starts on Jan 1, 2001.

      Sidebar: the "Ninetys" consist of year '90-'99, and a new decade, in this resepct, does start in 2000 (the aughts?).

      Yeah, I'm sure others will try to explain this simple concept to you, but I'm sure that you still won't get it.

      Cheers.

    5. Re:21st Century Starts.. by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      First off, take it easy about the exact beginning, its not a matter of life or death.

      Secondly, the question is a matter of perception, do you consider the year 1980 to be part of the '80s or the last year of the '70s? Regardless of the technicalities, most would group the year with the '80s. Its a common understanding, let's stick to it.

    6. Re:21st Century Starts.. by phil+reed · · Score: 1
      Actually, it starts wherever we want it to start. There was no year zero AD, that's true. However, there was also no year 1AD. That's because the AD counting of years did not actually start until around the year 531, when a scholar tried to calculate the actual date of Christ's birth, came up with a number and then Rome started counting from that number onward.

      Unfortunately, modern biblical scholars now believe he got the wrong answer, and that Christ was actually born around 4 BC. Thus, if you're counting from a christian perspective, the actual millennium was in 1996.


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    7. Re:21st Century Starts.. by FPhlyer · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. The modern calendar is based on what was once calculated as the birth of Jesus Christ (most contemporary scholars believe that He was born between 6 BC and 4 BC). On this calendar, there is no 0 AD or 0 BC, the transition is directly from 1 BC straight into 1 AD. Therefore, the first Millenium (AD) began with the year 1 AD. Since a Millenium is a thousand years (and not 999), the second millenium AD began in the year 1001 and the third millenium begins in 2001.

      This sucks bigtime as it does not make sense intuitively. The fact that the year "2000" is an even number ending in zero plays on the mind in a way that 2001 does only with Stanley Kubrick and A.C. Clarke fans.

      This is bigtime cool as it allows those of us who know better to enjoy two millenium New Years Eve parties... first this year and then the next!

      --
      Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
    8. Re:21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So apart from the fact there was no year 0, what
      happens to the first 365 days?

      This is like saying a child is 1 the day it's born...

    9. Re:21st Century Starts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So apart from the fact there was no year 0, what happens to the first 365 days?

      They were AD1.

      This is like saying a child is 1 the day it's born...

      Absolutely, but that's the way our calendar works. I don't think the designer open sourced it.

    10. Re:21st Century Starts.. by M@T · · Score: 1

      t's a common misconception for people who count from 1 to say it will start on Jan 1st 2001.
      But as a lot of my UNIX lecturers used to always remind us "count from zero".


      Wah? WTF does this have to do with Unix?

      To my thinking, 1999 is the 1999th year of Christ (there was no 0th year). As such its conclusion will indicate the passing of 1999 years; and 2000 will indicate the passing of 2000 years, which means (to me) that 01/01/2001 is the beginning of the "new" millennium.

      It should also be noted that, to my thinking, Christ didn't/doesn't exist in the first place and we're all argueing about one arbitrary point in time relative to another arbitrary point in time.

      What amazes me, though, is the sheer willingness of a large section of the western world to throw all logic out the window, simply because of our facination with the number 2000. ie. we can't celebrate the turn of the millennum on 1st Jan 2001 because not enough numbers are changing, and that just ain't cool enuff!

      What I'd really like to see is what the front pages of the major newspapers were saying on 01/01/1901... were they or weren't they celebrating a new century? Anyone know?





      --
      'sapientia potestas est'
  26. Flying Cars and Video Phones by vapor2000 · · Score: 1

    Followed by immortality and ESP based powers developed somewhat later...

  27. HyperSoar is a dog, and other stuff by J05H · · Score: 1

    Katz's friend Andy is barking up the wrong tree.
    HyperSoar is an interesting technology, but it's
    going to end up in the same aerospace trashheap as
    NASP, DC-Y, and DynaSoar. HyperSoar as a flight
    regime might be useful some day, but well before
    that day there will be commercially developed
    vehicles, maybe the Roton or K1 or Astroliner or
    any of dozens of others being built right now.
    The HyperSoar would "save" fuel and mass by skipping
    across the outer limits of the atmosphere. This is
    the same method that the Nazi Saanger skip bomber
    was going to use. It provides great fuel savings, but
    is rough on the craft, and involves a cycle of
    freefall and 2 G every 30 seconds to 1 minute, as
    the vehicle yo-yoes along it's flight path. Ugh. I'd
    much rather board a Kelly Astronliner at the airport,
    and deal with a 2G boost and then 90 minutes of nice,
    comfy freefall, thank you very much.
    No need to lose your lunch over it. 8)

    Screw 2020, I predict, judging by the very fast development
    through the mid and late 90s, that there
    will be fast package and maybe suborbital passenger
    service by 2010, on the outside. Maybe 2006, if
    Vela Tech or Kelly are successful.
    These are all companies that have money, investors,
    and designs. Vela's tech partner is bending metal,
    Kistler is bending metal and has both the Saudi
    and Taiwanese governments funnelling "all money
    needed" to them. Roton is testing the ATV.
    There's no need for NASA to be working this flight
    regime, private enterprise is covering it.

    As far as fast (ie. non-chemical rocket) powered interplanetary
    and interstellar flights, I think there is going to
    be much more progress over the next 10-15 years than
    anyone is predicting. I know of at least 3 projects
    that NASA and DOE are working, the updated Timberwind,
    a laser powered fusion drive and one that Frank Diaz
    is working on, a hybrid of a couple high-energy
    designs. Any of these could result in the fabled
    "three weeks to Mars" drive. Any of them could open
    up the solar system, and provide reasonable trip times
    to the nearest stars.

    Also, on the brain implants. My informed guess is
    that there are applications NOW that are using neural
    feedback. For the time being, there is no need for
    invasive surgery, but that will probably be necessary
    for sensory input. Dig this, by 2010 I bet there will
    be inputs for imaging, using the optic nerve. There
    is simply to great of a market for this not to
    happen. The market involved is not just blind people,
    either. Imagine the military applications of being
    able to "patch into" a series of remote cameras. Or,
    the opportunities for artists and animators when it
    comes to staging and visualizing projects.

    Last, I have great respect, big respect for Sir Arthur
    Clarke, but if I see another "fusion will save the
    world in 50 years" prediction, I'm gonna hurl. People
    have been claiming that fusion is 50 years away for
    the past 50 years! It's a joke, folks! Fusion will
    hopefully happen someday, some recent reactors have
    almost hit the break-even point with their energy output,
    but it's gonna be the sort of thing that comes as a
    complete surprise to the research community and the
    world. Remember the physics students that built that
    small plutonium breeder for a treasure hunt? Yeah,
    something like that. Unexpected, and hopefully open
    sourced. The last thing the world needs is some
    government getting exclusive access to a working
    fusion reactor.

    gahh. My hands hurt from typing.


    J05H

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    1. Re:HyperSoar is a dog, and other stuff by Head+Louse · · Score: 1
      Fusion will hopefully happen someday, some recent reactors have almost hit the break-even point with their energy output, but it's gonna be the sort of thing that comes as a complete surprise to the research community and the world.


      Though no one can truely predict what will happen more then ten years from now. Any Scientist can tell you what will happen in their field a year from now. Nothing as compleax as fusion will happen as a surprise to the research community.

  28. What I will do... by Rabbins · · Score: 1

    On January 1, 2000 I will start wearing my silver jumpsuit and space helmet. I will show up to work everyday from that point, in my future wear.

    Because that is what everyone else will be wearing in the year 2000. Don't miss out!

  29. Mote in God's Eye, was Re:Children of the Stars by georgeha · · Score: 2

    From Katz's article

    "Way, way in the future our society becomes rich enough to put oil and raw materials back into the earth. Recognizing that society could collapse and that it could never recover without all the natural resources we've used, we do put the oil and metal back. Putting it back as it we found it might be a bit silly. Perhaps we will just provide storehouses, but we can't make things too accessible, or the developing society will use all the resources too quickly and never develop the tech to use solar or fusion power and mine the solar system.

    "The idea that future civilizations could not rise due to the lack of natural resources was first noted by Niven in the Ringworld series as far as I can tell... I think I sort of remember something like that much earlier from Clark in "Children of the Stars."


    and from above

    A small revision to the comment that was quoted above about the development of civilizations in places without natural resources:

    I looked it up, and I was wrong about that concept first appearing in Clark's _Children of the Stars_. It first appeared (as far as I have read) in Heinlein's _Orphans of the Sky_. This is a pretty good story about life after civilization collapses on a multi-generation starship.


    This is also dealt with in detail in Niven and Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye." Technology is locked up in impenetrable musuems, guarded by combination locks requiring a knowledge of orbital mechanics, so that a recovering civilization can jump start itself once they have enough knowledge to open the museum.

    George



    1. Re:Mote in God's Eye, was Re:Children of the Stars by Sethb · · Score: 1

      This doesn't surprise me at all, considering Heinlein did a great portion of the editing on Niven and Pournelle's book, and made several suggestions to them that they used throughout its writing.

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
  30. Predictions beyond 2030 are pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Two reasons:

    1) The pace of technology is due for a big jump:

    Assume that computer power continues to double every 2 years. 30 Years then equates to a factor of 30,000 in performance improvement. A G4 Mac puts out about 1 Gigaflop today. So a G10 or so Mac circa 2030AD should crank 30 Teraflops, or about 10^15 bits/sec (32 bits/flop). For $200K you could buy 100 machines and get 10^17 bits/sec.

    The human brain has about 10^11 neurons, with about 10^4 synapses/neuron, running at an average of 100 Hz, for a total bit rate of 10^17 also. So about 2030, you can buy a human brain's worth of compute power for less than a human (remember, a computer can run 24/7) costs for a year.

    Beyond this point, the total brain power on the planet goes into rapid exponential growth. Nothing prevents you from clustering machines even before 2030 to get human-equivalent or greater power.

    You can argue about whether the Moore's Law constant is 18 months or 2 years, or whether semiconductors will reach a wall and stop improving. You can also argue about how much actual processing power equates to a human, and whether we can code the software to do something useful with that much compute power, but at present rates of progress, you get to a crossover in the early 21st century where the computer brain power takes over as the dominant brain power on the planet.

    2) Breakthroughs and inventions in the next 30 years changing things unpredicatbly. Who knew about the Web even 10 years ago?

    Therefore, making predicitons in a time period when machines with potentially thousands of times our thinking power are out there, and a generations's worth of inventions makes no sense to me.

  31. Katz... why? by TGmentor · · Score: 1

    Does anybody have any idea what Katz's goals are? He always seems to go off on these grandious views of the future tangents!

    Predictions serve no purpose.

    TG

    --
    Teach a man to dish and he will gossip for life.
    1. Re:Katz... why? by alumshubby · · Score: 2

      Predictions serve no purpose.

      Neither does the hula hoop, but they're both a hell of a lot of fun.

      --
      "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
  32. They forgot 2002's world war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China launches a full scale assult on America's west coast after deleting information centers with EMPs shockwaves. China seizes most of the islands in the china sea, and opens a front with russia. Space based weapons as well as various frightning weapons (lazers, limited biological weaponry, use of sound waves to 'resonate human bodies', microwaves to disprute thoughts of ground troops) are used for the first time. HOw does it end? Jesus of course :)

  33. Re:Possabilities... by pen · · Score: 1
    For once, can we not mention Microsoft?

    People seem to enjoy imagining their demise so much, that it has evolved into a hobby...

    I don't think that most (intelligent) Slashdot readers are in this group, but some people seem to like just about anything, as long as it's against Microsoft's interests...

    AFAIC, this is just another "first post!"

    --

  34. Fall of the nation State by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 3

    1) By the end of the 21st century the Nation State will be of diminshed importance and will be on the way out. The globalization of trade, the globalization of culture and the globalization of communication of ideas brought about by the internet will make national boundaries increasingly less important. Computing and communication devices will become continue to get cheaper and will beome increasingly available in poorer parts of the world.

    2) Cheap access to space will (finaly) come about

    3) The resources of the Solar System especialy Near Earth Orbit asteroids will begin, and indeed must if the consumer orientated consumer society we live in is to continue past the next century.

    1. Re:Fall of the nation State by FalseConsciousness · · Score: 1

      "Fall of the nation State" has to go in the same bin with "end of the decadent monarchies" (circa 1900 - 1910). The death of the nation-state is a philosophical death, like the end of modernism or the death of painting or the death of rock and roll. The nation-state has certainly lost its reason for existence and its vitality as a concept. This doesn't mean that nation-states will cease to exist any more than monarchies ceased to exist after WW1, or rock and roll ceased to exist after the Sex Pistols. It does mean that something else will become more relevant to world politics, although it is not yet clear what this will be - competing distributed oligarchies?

      --

  35. We all die as victems of the Y2k bug... by Thauma · · Score: 2

    Jan 1st, 2000: Some flaw in a major nuclear power's strategic weapon system causes a first strike scenario, and the ensuing massive nuclear holocaust kills off almost all life larger than a rat.

    July 23, 2005: Significant amounts of sunlight can again penetrate the atmosphere.

    September 9th 2083: Cockroaches discover fire, nuff said

  36. God in the 21st century by Prince+Caspian · · Score: 0
    God has related to us in different ways throughout history, depending on where we are at. Before Christ, we needed a strict law in order to understand what it means to love God and others. After Christ, he superseded the written law with the concepts of truth and grace.

    As we move past our Scientific philosophies to a more Postmodern view, God will begin to reveal himself in new ways. It really does look like things are gearing up for the second coming of Christ, which means there will be a real polarization: many will come to have relationships with God through Christ, but many will become great enemies of God. There will be an increased understanding that true Christianity is a relationship and not a religion (a bunch of traditions and actions).

    "Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."

    --

    "It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
  37. Volunteer Representation in the US by MoToMo · · Score: 2

    If in the future there is an online democracy based on the voting of all citizens, it must be on a volunteer basis. If it were by appointment, similar to Jury duty, poor decisions would be made by people who are uneducated on the subject at hand. A volunteer symposium could function as an auxiliary to Congress along with the current House and Senate, and/or eventually replace both of them. The volunteer aspect of it would let those who are interested in a certain issue voice their opinion, and uninterested parties could opt to not waste their time. Any bill that had a very low voter turnout could be thrown out on the basis that there was no interest in it, either way.

    Such a system could introduce what i would call "Do or die legislation". In such a system, the topic of gun control could be raised, if there was low voter turnout, or the vote was near even, the current laws would not change, whereas if the vote was sided either way, the laws would be rewritten to represent the views of the majority. Such a rewrite would then have to be ratified by those who voted for the majority side.

    Do or die legislation would probably stop some boneheaded laws from being passed, as either they would get no attention, or then would be voted down.

    But then, such a system is very far off into the future. It would obviously require major changes to the Constitution, or would be implemented by another country.

    1. re: Volunteer Representation in the US by Thag · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this unbalance things in the direction of the Press? In such a system, only the most-publicized legislation would be considered, thus giving the press real control over what laws would be enacted.

      That's bad, because it unbalances the checks and balances between the press and Congress, and because the press no longer polices itself to keep itself impartial or even accurate.

      Also, it would be very difficult to do ANY planning for more than a few years ahead under this kind of a system.

      Jon Acheson

      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    2. Re: Volunteer Representation in the US by MoToMo · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned, this system would take at _least_ 30 years to come about, and by that time the web, or another equal opportunity medium will prevail as the source for news.

      Paper will soon only hold history, News will be transferred electronically.

      Currently only large newspapers have the resources to distribute their publication in mass quantities, and only a few even cover the United States, let alone the world. As more people turn to the web for news, more sites will step up to provide the news. The major players in print will still be around in electronic form, but may others will jump in while it is easy for them to do so. Specialized sites (i.e. /. ) will also flourish.

      The press right now has more control that you may think. Anything you read in print has already been pre-chewed for you, and the spin doctors have had their way with it.

      Personally, i believe that it may balance things out more, and i'm not sure what would hinder planning: please explain.

      -Dan

    3. Re:Volunteer Representation in the US by Captain+Teflon · · Score: 1

      Do this in the US if you want.

      Just keep it away from where I live, Australia.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
  38. Impossible... by pen · · Score: 1
    2020 [...] Americans vote from polls, neighborhood kiosks, offices or homes using their Citizen ID's and passwords.

    If the average intelligence level is the same then as it is now (and it isn't likely to significantly change in a little more than 20 years) most people will be against this.

    Unless, of course, we develop some kind of fingerprint, iris, or even DNA scanner, for near-perfect verification. Then, of course, we'd have to deal with the privacy issues...

    --

  39. I am going to have to call 'bs' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is trying to advance technology, last i checked, linux users rarely smash textile machines because of thier implications for skilled and semi-skilled laborers. I am afraid it really doesnt hold true, sorry.

  40. BioEngineered Computers by Dirkin+Har · · Score: 1

    Sometime in the next century, genetic engineering and biotechnology will merge to grow computers within our own bodies that allow us to do far more sophisticated tasks and have incredible memories. By the end of the century, non-verbal communication will be made possible because of these bio-computers being able communicate with each other "wirelessly." We will really be connected to the web.

    1. Re:BioEngineered Computers by skydryedblue · · Score: 1

      You'll take a pill and then the question will be: Did you swallow the computer, or did the computer swallow you?

      --
      .
  41. A little too early... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Clarke needs to add about 20-30 years to each of his dates. We're advancing quickly, but not that quickly.

    1. Re:A little too early... by Zhaus · · Score: 1

      I remember reading somewhere (no, I don't remember! sorry) that in general, predictions are way too liberal in the short term, and far too conservative in the long term. That seems to hold true for most of the predictions in this article.

  42. Predictions by smoondog · · Score: 1

    2005 - Internet voting begins in a number of European countries. At least one of them has to hold a new election because of fraudulent votes.

    2020 - Wars increase when governments begin to try to retain power lost to large multinational corporations and the internet. Five students are shot at CmdrTaco High School protesting America's involvement in Brazil's revolution.

    2030 - The world begins to realize that interplanetary manned space flight may be too expensive (for any technology)

    2040 - Mt Rainier erupts and buries, yes you guessed it, Redmond, WA.

    -- Moondog

    1. Re:Predictions by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      2040 - Mt Rainier erupts and buries, yes you guessed it, Redmond, WA.

      So, Mr. Bond, I see you have learned the details of Project Scorch One. Alas, I have gone to considerable expense over the last 45 years to see my plan come to fruition, and I cannot allow you to live. [Places you in a trap where you will almost certainly die, but not be watched.] Good bye, Mr. Bond.


      ---
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  43. Yet another supplemental prediction by SDuane · · Score: 1

    February, 2000: Hunger is no longer a problem in the U.S. as thousands of people realize that the apocalypse isn't coming and unload all of their hoarded canned goods in food drives.

  44. Singularity and Species by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1
    With respect to all the participants in this precognitive discussion, I think they're missing something important, especially about AI.

    As first noted by Vernor Vinge, once AI is created that is more intelligent than human beings, the exponential advance of technology will become self-accelerating, as the designers of new technology will be technological constructs themselves. At this point in history, there are only 3 outcomes:

    • A Singularity, where technology has become so advanced that we cannot envision its effects.
    • A Stagnation, where society decides to purposely limit technology so that no further advances are made.
    • A Fall, where society decides to purposely refute technology, and return to a pastoral existance.
    Each of these possibilities is a radical shift in society, and any of them would likely be presaged by conflict.

    Note also that it won't just be humans going through these changes. It will be normal humans, altered (by cybernetics or genetics) humans, AI machines, and any new species that humans create. (Quick prediction: By 2020, the first intelligent non-human animal will be created. Think 'anthropomorphics'.) It's likely that each of these species will choose a different path.

    So, my predictions:

    By 2050 there will be war, as the agents of change (the new species) fight against the shackles of normal human society and progress. Only rare human beings will understand and be able to cope with the new species; for the most part they will be unable to live together.

    By 2100 three societies will exist.
    The First Race (composed mostly of normal humans) will return to a pastoral existance, on Earth or on another suitable planet.
    The Second Race will return to the post-industrial era and become a stagnant society, intentionally limiting their progress so that they only have access to the technology they need (Mars would suit this society well.)
    And the Third Race, composed mostly of robots and altered humans, will pick up their bags and move to the stars.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:Singularity and Species by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      And the Third Race, composed mostly of robots and altered humans, will pick up their bags and move to the stars.

      So buy stock in U-Haul now. Those mileage fees will really add up.

  45. Only the telixu will posses tech. on Ix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    yes 'unholy' mariage between flesh and machine will be frowned upon and computers outlawed instead we will train 'mentants' as human computers. The invention of the lasgun will be nullifed by the creation of the shield which when the interact will cause a huge explosion. A strong drug will allow us to comprehend things out side of ourselfs (read "Doorways of Preceptions" you think Herbert is off here) and allow navagators to travel through space. Human genetic engineering will try to create a perfect human, unfortunatly the creation of these bene geserit expirements will grow out of thier control starting a intergalactic jihad which kills billions.

  46. Life on Europa by Journey · · Score: 1

    2010 - NASA probes will discover that the liquid water beneath the surface of Europa does harbor life. Not mearly bacterium, but also larger heterotrophs feeding off of them.

    The discovery of life not on Earth will drive many antiquated religous sects to despair causing mass suicides, stopping only when it is finally understood that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

  47. For more REALISTIC predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Clarke has never been known for a realistic timeline in his predictions. Some of his visions has come true, but only the small scale predictions. Of all his large scale predictions: Manned Mars missions, Manned interplanetary missions, AI, Space sturctures, exotic energy sources. . . etc., NONE have come true. For a more realistic timeline check out these two links from the Air Force's Air University.

    2025 Spacecast 2020 WARNING: these are pretty long and very involved. For the serious minded person only.

    These offer many different scenerios, and possible outcomes and consequences.

    Cold fusion within 30 years when we aren't even CLOSE to hot fusion? I don't think so. And I can tell you right now: even if the technology exhists for Aero-Space planes by 2020, they will certainly not be in general use because of cost.

    1. Re:For more REALISTIC predictions by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      Cold fusion within 30 years when we aren't even CLOSE to hot fusion?

      Cold fusion research doesn't necessarily depend on hot fusion research. If there's anything to cold fusion, it will develop separately from hot fusion. (Though funding for cold fusion research is very hard to come by. The US gov't, for instance, has refused to fund anything that sounds like it even might be distantly related to cold fusion.)

  48. A Psychohistory of the Future by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1


    2005: Norway's initial attempt at electronic democracy is thwarted when its main election server is cracked and Howard Stern is elected "President of All Nations."

    2020: First human brain implants are introduced, initially aimed at enhancing human memory. A decade of competition over standards and thought communication protocols follows.

    2025: First cold fusion reaction created. Although the technology becomes popular in small to mid-size portable generators, it remains too expensive to produce on a large scale.

    2030: In order to produce enough food the Earth's exploding population, large agribusiness comglomerates begin to produce large underwater "aquafarms." Once endangered sea mammals like the manatee become prized as a source of DNA for genetically engineered "sea cows" who are bred underwater as substitutes for land cows.

    2035: Entire Amazon basin becomes a secured "green zone." No human can come in or out without permission from Amazon zone police. A similar policy is pursued by other countries in an attempt to save our remaining rain forests. "Jungle Wars begin erupting at the edges of these green zones.

    2050: The first commercial "hot fusion" reactor goes online five years late and a billion dollars overbudget. Despite its initial stumbles, this seemingly more primitive technology, succeeds where cold fusion failed -- in generating energy for large commercial scale power plants.

    2055: AI succeeds in producing the first droids, single-function devices which mimic human thought to perform tasks far more efficiently than any human could. Although there is every indication that the same technology could produce fully sentient machines, fear and political pressure prevents them being created.

    2060: The cheapness of fusion power drives many public utilities to near bankruptcy. While many of these utilities waste their time demanding government subsidies, one daring company decides to take the daring step of bartering energy for everything, all subcontracters and vendors receive free power for their services. Employee salaries are abolished and replaced with energy credits which they trade for cash. Despite initial resistance. The idea spreads and becomes so popular and so widely copied that an entire "energy economy" springs up and becomes bigger than the mainstream cash based economy.

    2063: Nanobots are used to enhance the human immune system in incurably ill patients. Average life expectancy in most industrialized countries increases to 105. Overpopulation continues to get more serious as plans for large, underwater communitees are unvieled.

    2065: Congress passes the "Energy Credit Standardization Act," confirming what the rest of the world already knows, energy has become the 20th century's dominant currency.

    2070: AI returns in a big way when secondary processors are added to human brain implants, intially to control behavior in convicted criminals. Instant two-way communication between machines and technologically enhanced humans speeds the pace of human evolution.

    2080: A potential solution to the population problem appears when it is discovered that brain implants when used to control immune system nanobots can allow humans to temporarily shut down parts of their reproductive systems -- the ultimate form of birth control.

    2090: As the lines between man and machine begin to blur, "tech withdrawal" is diagnosed in new-born infants who for some reason didn't receive enough immune system nanobots from their mothers during pregnancy. These children are highly suceptible to disease and must be injected with nanobots and given brain implants to survive.

    2099: Pundits argue over whether or not the 22nd century begins in 2100 or in 2101.

    --
    Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  49. predictions.......subject to revision by skepticphilosopher · · Score: 1

    well not much will change. thats human nature, sorry folks but we wont end up being some super-wise benevolent race that interacts with machines smarter than us. no AI machines with human consciouness, thats something metaphysical that cant be made of wires and silicon. I predict at least one nuclear detonation in the united states either by a terrorist group or war. there will be at least two major wars one will probably be nuclear. but not on the mutual assured destruction level. space travel will be common but not outside our solar system. trips to mars will still take a LONG time, but will be faster than they are today. some humans will never set foot on earth. some will never go higher than sea-level. worldcom will buy microsoft (which will still be more popular than linux in the pc realm because it is easier to learn, remember dear hunter was once the most popular game on the shelves), and AT&T. cocacola will get a new agressive ceo who will buy worldcom, krupps, sony, eastern europe, all the auto makers, most of the computer hardware companies, and everything else it can get its hands on. and become known as THE COMPANY. pepsi will still be around though. famines and disease will still happen, a major plague might hit the USA or EURASIA and wipe out a large percent of the population there alla black plague. inflation will continue as will your taxes. problems will still plague the biotech industry, no hearts in testtubes folks, but maby in baboons or pigs. cybernetic replacements will become available or improve (Jarvek style Hearts, kidney diallisys machines that can be implanted where your bad kidney was, maby livers and lungs as well.)some old diseases will go. some new ones will spring up. people will still die, however the average life span will increase a good bit. new energy sources will become available and widespread, however hydrocarbons will stay popular, just not as dominant. Robots will not replace a large number of jobs, as developement costs will still be higher than minnimum wage, however robots will replace more jobs. collage education will become mandatory and free, essentially a collage education will be as necessary for employment as a high school one is now.

    These are my predictions for the new millenium.

    --
    Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
    1. Re:predictions.......subject to revision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only one thing: no AI machines with human consciouness, thats something metaphysical that cant be made of wires and silicon. But can be made with proteins and lipids and sugars (and everything else that go into making neurons). Why can't a brain made from silicon and metal be every bit as conscious as one made of meat.?

    2. Re:predictions.......subject to revision by skepticphilosopher · · Score: 1

      because whatever you choose to use; silicon, spam, sugars, lipids......whatever. you are still manuipilating the physical realm, wherehas consciouness, true consciouness not just passing the turing test exists beyond the physical realm. if it didnt then all thought would be determined by cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and other electromagnetic phenominon.

      --
      Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
  50. Nah. Religion will fade away into obscurity... by root · · Score: 3
    Vestiges of various ceremonies and holy days (marriage, Christmas) will persist but without their religious signifigance (look at the growing number of non-denominational marriages) or will mutate into strange celebrations and rituals (The Easter Bunny, Halloween, Santa Claus). There will be stubborn adherants, but fewer and fewer with each passing generation. The vatican (now mostly empty and wasting valuable land space) will be reabsorbed by Rome. The many buildings will probably be turned into museums and the whole place will become some sort of art exhibit district. Ordinary churches/synagogues/temples/etc. around the globe will turn into community centers, rec centers, or be retrofitted into apartments or condos. Thw wine business which many isolated monestaries run on the side will grow to become the main business at these sites. Religion will be covered in school history classes but seem so distant and ill understood by future generations as Scottish clan wars and everyday accepted instutionalized racism. The bad will be rembered more than the good. Inquisitions. Scandals. Money laundering. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Jones. The positive accomplishments of religion not being considered to outweigh the evil done. In the not so distant future, all religions will fade into obscurity, practised only by the lunatic fringe, who will be viewed with suspicion as possible unstable persons who may "go postal" like militia groups, Ted Cazynski, David Koresh, the Montana Freemen, etc.

    It's a primitive prosctise best abandoned for the good of society. People who think this way and aren't afraid to say it, in positions of power, like Jesse Ventura are JUST THE BEGINNING SIGNS of the next great era. The Great Shedding of Religion.

    1. Re:Nah. Religion will fade away into obscurity... by god_of_the_machine · · Score: 1

      ...are JUST THE BEGINNING SIGNS of the next great era. The Great Shedding of Religion. Again?!? How many times must this happen? Nietzsche pointed out that the belief in God died almost 100 years ago ("God is dead") and yet the official signs remain. Religion is as Ventura described, a crutch for the weak-minded. But for the rest of the people... it is a series of meaningless rituals that are done for the sake of tradition. Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton believes in organized religion? Or Steve Forbes? Not likely... but to denounce it a la Ventura is not worthwhile politically. And yet they attend church, etc to appease the few (but vocal weak-minded people). And among those intelligent people who claim they believe, they act their lives in a manner where it becomes obvious that they have cognitively seperated logical beliefs from traditional rituals. They may belief that the Earth was created 7000 years ago... but they understand that we are seeing stars that exploded billions of years ago, with no contradiction. They belief with their mouth but understand with their mind -- strange but true, I know many of them! --- "Progress is the God of the Machine"

      --

      -rt-
      ** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
  51. I can't be quite so positive by Ledge+Kindred · · Score: 2
    2030:

    The world's ecosystem is collapsing under the strain of trying to support 12 billion human beings. New agricultural and animal husbandry techniques are struggling to keep up in the face of strange new diseases and syndromes caused by the amount of genetic engineering having been introduced into the food species and the low tolerance for new diseases because of the amount of domestication away from the original robust strains of food animals and plants.

    The last acres of rainforest are slash-and-burned. Potential cures for many chronic diseases are lost forever, along with 25% of land species diversity.

    Ocean life is struggling to maintain a balance from massive overfishing and problems caused by pollution. Most cetacean species have died off from over-harvesting of the plankton and krill beds they normally feed from. Species diversity is only 10% of what it was in the late 20th century in the oceans.

    Only the most remote locations like the steppes of Tibet and Mongolia and the Australian outback maintain anything like a historical ecology, however introduced species and environmental changes have started to affect even the life in these remote areas.

    Strange new viral, bacterial and prion-caused diseases start to appear from the high concentration of humans in close proximity to chemical and biological wastes.

    "Chernobyl-class" nuclear disasters become more prevalent as the maintenaince on nuclear facilities drops and new plants are brought online with speed in favor of safety simply to handle the huge demand for new energy sources as oil and petroleum reserves drop to critical levels around the world.

    Overall, human standards of living drop across the board as the division between "rich" and "poor" become broader. Middle Eastern oil wealth has dried up as so has the oil. Only the Software Tycoons who got their start in the late 20th/early 21st century maintain extremely high standards of living; the world is still very dependent on computers.

    California and Washington states have seceded from the United States, forming a new Technological Monarchy run by the major software/hardware corporations in which 99.99% of the computing and software power of the world now resides. The rise of the Software States began in the late 20th century with the passing of the UCITA as law, granting the Software States the legal rights to remotely enter any corporation or government computer systems to disable their software. It was only a small jump from UCITA to complete governmental independence.

    A small underground of hackers and activists continue to struggle against overwhelming odds to help maintain the collapsing world ecosystems, rebbuild and maintain governments and understand and fight the strange new diseases. The core tenets of what used to be called "The Open Source Movement" has since mutated into a world-wide coalition of scientists - traditionally educated and dedicated hobbiest alike - of all branches who struggle with shoestring-and-chewing-gum materials to perfect new techniques for keeping the people and the planet functioning. Their "reward" has passed from popular recognition of their technical and scientific abilities into a simpler humanitarian desire to Do The Right Thing.

    Yeah, so my forecast for the future is dim; I have a low opinion of humanity, I guess.

    On the bright side I can predict that around the same time, hate mail to Jon Katz drops off as he dies after a long and moderately successful career as a technology journalist...

    -=-=-=-=-

    --

    -=-=-=-=-
    My mom's going to kick you in the face!

    1. Re:I can't be quite so positive by henley · · Score: 2

      I've been reading Slashdot for 6 months now, and this is the first time I've been moved to post.

      2030: The world's ecosystem is collapsing under the strain of trying to support 12 billion human beings. New agricultural and animal husbandry techniques are struggling to keep up in the face of strange new diseases and syndromes caused by the amount of genetic engineering having been introduced into the food species and the low tolerance for new diseases because of the amount of domestication away from the original robust strains of food animals and plants.

      See http://www.newscientist.com /ns/19991002/newsstory8.html Summary: There's a fair old chance that there will never be 12 billion on the planet. Today's predictions have the population of the world at (only) 8.9 Billion by 2050.Indeed, the real long-term planning that gets done now indicates we may have to content with a long-term world-wide population slump after 2070 or so.

      To my way of thinking, such a view would invalidate much if not all of your argument's consequences, although obviously the causes - human nature - still applies.

      I had a long tract here on GM and what have you, which I've had to remove because it was rubbish. However, I would urge you to review the literature - popular and otherwise. My personal opinion formed from just this is that we just don't know enough about it, period. To me that suggests an appropriate course of actions: Learn all that can be learned about the technology & it's effects.

      I cannot, however, resist a side-swipe at my own country here. Mass-media led knee-jerk reaction leading to not only a ban on commercial exploitation (arguable but reasonable), but also an effective ban on research & development (reference the number of GM crop trials destroyed this year in the UK) is not an approach I can condone. Anyone got any jobs in a more mature society?

      I started off by violently disagreeing with your conclusions based on your incorrect premise (12 Billion people by 2030). Having now reread both your post and my response, I see we agree on just about everything but the numbers. Ho hum.

      henley

      --

      --
      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
    2. Re:I can't be quite so positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if this is what will truly happen, but it'd make a heck of a story. :D Some of the other predictions here would too, but they're by and large too positive and based around the timeline format. This sounds like an interesting novel outline or movie treatment.

    3. Re:I can't be quite so positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Green is people!!

  52. Re:Possabilities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sigh... please don't tell me I'm the only one here who can tell that all of these predictions are just like people in the 50s who thought in the 90s we'd be driving flying cars, living on moon bases, wearing plastic jumpsuits, eating our food in pill form and living in bubble houses.

    Please, please, please, for the love of Skuld, look for evidence before making your claims! Look for a trend, look for companies working on such a thing, look at probabilities from their sources, etc!

    Nuclear weapons don't just explode (nuclear power plants, on the other hand...). Its easy to stimulate neurons to see an image but another thing all together to re-write them. If a current method of encryption is cracked, people don't jump to using paper, they come up with a newer better one (and for those who werent, unlike me, flamed for mistaking public key encryption with private key, private key doesn't use primes so factoring primes is irrelevant). Please - give evidence for your claims! Only a few of the claims I saw (such as the spaceplane or the electronic interfaces with the brain) had evidence provided, and thus were likely claims. Nearly all of the others were just daydreams with no posted evidence.

    Don't be like people who claimed police will carry laser guns and robots will take over menial jobs in the 90s. Be a good geek! back up your claims!

    :)

    - Rei

  53. online voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jeez, i can barely find time to do my online football picks once a week, how am i gonna remember to vote for a president? how hard is it going to be to get into the voting site right before the election closes?

  54. Orbital Hotels and zero-G pr0n by griffjon · · Score: 1

    2015: Minutes after the Hilton Orbital opens its doors, realtime broadcasts of the first zero-G pr0n will take place.

    "Co-eds in Space"
    "The Moonshot"
    "Riding the Rocket"
    "In Orbit, you're always going down"
    and...
    "In space, no one can hear you moan"

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  55. Collective intelligence by jmoo · · Score: 1

    Along the lines of AC's brain cap and AI we could have group intelligence. Multiple brains networked together or networked with AI. Sounds a little like the borg, I know but I'm not thinking group conscious but the ability to access knowledge out side our own brain. Would be cool to access an entire encyclopedia right from my own noggin

    --
    The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
    1. Re:Collective intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of high school nerds!

  56. drwiii's History of the Future by drwiii · · Score: 5
    2000: True to their planned schedule, Red Hat Linux 8.0 ships.

    2002: True to their planned schedule, Microsoft Windows 2000 ships.

    2004: True to their planned schedule, Amiga goes out of business.

    2006: True to his planned schedule, ESR is imprisoned following the shooting of Bruce Perens.

    2007: True to his planned schedule, Rob Malda, webmaster of the popular news, e-commerce, and online porn discussion site Slashdot.Org reveals on Slashdot's 10th anniversary that it was really bought out by the NSA to facilitate spying on everyone. Malda and Bates are never heard from again. Thanks to a strategically placed Slashdot Poll, neither is Jon Katz.

    2008: The NSAndover(tm) Media Powerhouse buys out Microsoft. Bill Gates is never heard from again. Once again, thanks to a strategically placed Slashdot Poll, neither is Ballmer.

    2009: Slashdot Magazine is launched. NSAndover's acquisition of Microsoft also netted them one of Microsoft's secret subsidiaries: ZDNet.

    2010: Your favorite "I survived Y2K and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt" shirt finally wears out.

    2011: NSAndoverSoft releases Windows 2000 Service Pack 361. Slashdot is integrated with the Operating System.

    2012: Mick Jagger turns 69, to the delight of late night talk show hosts, starved for any joke they can get.

    2014: Torvalds leaves Transmeta and gets a job at NSAndoverSoft's ZDNet division to replace Jesse Berst.

    2015: Jesse Berst kicks his 20 year addiction to crack. NSAndoverSoft's ZDNet offers to take him back on staff. Mysteriously, he is hit by a bus and killed right outside their offices. Few people notice or care.

    2018: HDVGA cards found to have fatal "exploding" flaw, everyone must switch back to 13-year-old "MSVGA" technology. Slashdot users complain that old 65535x65535 MSVGA screens "suck".

    2020: ABC's semi-popular "20/20" night time show declares this "The year of 20/20". I wonder why.

    2023: Hemos gets his damned nanties. Too bad nobody's seen or heard from him in over 15 years.

    2025: Using a new combined technology derived from high-powered lasers, GPS, and Intel CPU IDs, the Slashdot "1st post" syndrome is eliminated. Permanently.

    2026: Over 5,000 people found dead after a bug in Slashdot's perl leads to the flagging of an entire forum for "termination". NSAndoverSoft realizes its fatal mistake of keeping old volatile Microsoft programming crew on-board after the acquisition.

    2030: drwiii dies from Microsoft poisoning at the age of 52. Nobody really notices or cares, except for the people that were reading this 31 years ago and were hoping for this timeline to go on for another 100 years. He is brought back to life thanks to Nanites(tm), and decides to make one more smart-assed journal entry before retiring to nice, sunny, warm Antarctica.

    2031: Transmeta's Linux-powered toaster is finally released to the public. Having only spoken a total of 23 words to the public, CEO Dave Ditzel is never heard from again.

    --

  57. Quake, California, quake by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    We all are behaving like it won't happen but a big earthquake will strike California. It will at least indirectly affect Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles,...

    Imaging the consequences for local, USA, Mexican and world economies and societies.
    --

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  58. Well DUHH!! by DaPhreaker · · Score: 1

    No one is saying that 21st century starts on Jan. 1 2000. We are talking about the next millennium.. err... however that damned word is spelled. That doesn't take place until 2001.

    It is a common misconception for people who don't know the difference.

    --
    root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd ............. 12156 ? S thoughtd root@localbrain root
    1. Re:Well DUHH!! by Lew+Pitcher · · Score: 1

      Lessee...

      The 1st century started on January 1, 1 AD, and completed one hundred years later, ending at the end of December 31, 100.
      The 2nd century started on January 1, 101 AD, and ended one hundred years later at the end of December 31, 201.

      Taken to it's logical conclusion, The 20th century started on Jan 1, 1901, and will end one hundred years later at the end of December 31, 2001.

      As for "The Millennium", my dictionary defines millennium as a period of one thousand years (Mod. L, fr L. 'mille' thousand + 'annus' year), but does not define a starting point for any millennium. I'd take it as legal (but suspect) to say that January 1, 2000 starts *a* new millennium.

      --

      "values of beta will give rise to dom!"

  59. Amazonia by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    2035: Entire Amazon basin becomes a secured "green zone." No human can come in or out without permission from Amazon zone police.

    That will have to deal with the Indians, or the poor Brazilians that killed them.

    I remember reading here that the jungle is not so important for world oxygen. Production and consumption are balanced.

    But it could be interesting because of bio-diversity. Expect it privatised.
    --

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
    1. Re:Amazonia by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      I figure that the Brazilian Indians will mostly be stuck in the rain forest and unwilling to venture out anyway after a century of encroachment by "civilization." A bigger problem will be the outsiders who have moved into rain forest in search of gold and cheap land to slash and burn. My guess is that most of them will be physically evicted. Expect some bloodshed. This might not be the way it should happen, but it's probably the way it will happen.

      Our atmosphere is 20% oxygen. And it's my understanding that it will remain so for thousands of years even if every forest on Earth disappears. A more important service that it performs is removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and keeping it tied up in the Earth's crust. Runaway Greenhouse Effect anyone?

      Then there's the whole bio-diversity thing. The Amazon is home to some of the most telegenic creatures in the world. That's one reason why so many environmentalists fight so hard for it. They tend to be very dogmatic and will probably become powerful enough in the future to squelch any attempts at privatization.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  60. 1/30/2000 Buffalo Bills denied, Jesus returns by georgeha · · Score: 2

    January 30, 2000, Atlanta

    Superbowl XXXIV was almost in the history books. Doug Flutie was driving the Bills deep into Rams territory with 1:52 to go in the game, striving to add to the 24 point lead and finally win one for the Bills.

    At that point, the ceiling of the Georgia Dome cracked open, and Jesus Christ floated down on a pillar of blinding, radiant light, returning for his second coming.

    "I'm sorry I was late, I forgot to check my PC for Y2K, and it took this long to get my PIM up and running again." replied Jesus, when asked about his timing. "I've had enough of Windows, though, and that's all I'll say until Judgement Day."

    "Well, we need to convene the rules committee, there's no precedent for a second coming interrupting the Super Bowl, but Superbowl XXXIV may have be to in limbo for eternity" said Paul Tagliabue. NFL commissioner. "But off the record, the Bills may be denied again."

    In Buffalo, fan's were a little depressed, but cautiously upbeat about the Stanley Cup finals. "Come on, we have Satan on our side, how can we lose." said an unidentified fan.

    George

  61. The Audience was Wrong by David+Jensen · · Score: 1

    There was a question that had "Lego" as the correct answer, but I believe the audience chose "Atari".

  62. 2002? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for their (controversial, to say the least) discovery of so-called cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.

    Pons and Flieschmann?!?!?!?!?!?
    Mr. Clarke, have you had a stroke?!?!?!?


    Boy, that's just what I need to see this next century start out on: frauds being awarded nobel prizes. (That sure would validate everyone else's honesty in the field.)

    God. I'll continue this thread after lunch, as this will ineviably turn into a flame war.
    Mr. Clarke, I respect you immensely, and loved damn near all of your books, but you're smoking something here.

    -- Olorin.
    back after lunch.

  63. Prediction: We'll be bored of the 20th Century... by ncw · · Score: 1

    Between now and December 2000 my prediction is
    that we will all be sick of "The best/worst/top X {whatever} of the 20th Century". The media hype is beginning now - I just hate to think what it is going to be like in a few months time!

    Of course there is the 2000 vs 2001 'millenium' argument also. When 2000 has passed the media will doubtless proclaim that 2001 is the real millenium and treat us to another dose of the '2nd millenium rerun' syndrome ;-)

    --
    Every man for himself, all in favour say "I"
  64. y2k fallout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American(USA) legal system will collapse from thousands of business sueing to recover unnessicary charges from y2k audits. There will be several authors(?) killed in the stampeed to change from y2k expert to w2k expert. Hundreds of fires will be started from illegal(in most states) fireworks ignighted to commeroate the new millenia.

  65. Ketchup in aerosol cans ... by Woodrow+Stool · · Score: 3

    This is my big hope for the 21st Century. Mustard too.

    1. Re:Ketchup in aerosol cans ... by hax0r · · Score: 1

      they tried this earlier in this century, with ketchup, mustard and a lot of other food products, the only things that stuck around were whipped cream and cheese.

      --


      strange things are afoot at the Circle K...
  66. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Moore's Law of ever increasing computing will plateau in ten years or so. I suggest we got lucky with Silicon technology in having Moore's Law. We've squandered much of the computing increase on things like GUIs and bloated OS's, so the great increase in computing power does not seem so in practice.

  67. Teleportation by Jimhotep · · Score: 1

    Teleporation drives billions of people
    out of work.

  68. or maybe it could be this way... by Capt+Dan · · Score: 5

    October 30, 2003
    Redmond (AP) - Intense fighting continued today between the US Army and Microsoft Loyalist Forces, in an effort by the Justice Department to sanction the company for "conduct unbecoming of a corporation seeking World Domination." The battle is the latest step in the long drawn out legal battle into Microsoft's business practices.

    The army was called in last week after the DOE confirmed that Microsoft had in fact successfully perform an underground test of a nuclear warhead. According to an internal Microsoft memo leaked to the press, Chairman Gates is overjoyed by Microsofts new found status as a nuclear power. In an excerpt of the memo, Gates states: "Let's see them try to fuck with me now." and later "Who's the man? Bill's the man!"

    The attack on the Microsoft Compound has not gone as well as the Pentagon expected, mainly due to underestimating the loyalty of the elite Microsoft Ninjas, and the fact that half the Army's equipment runs Windows CE.

    "I was driving along in my jeep, when it happened." reports Colonal Stephens who was injured yesterday morning. "The dashboard Mp3 player started laughing at me, and then it blew up in my face! That bastard took my face!!!"

    Private Shaftoe of the 23rd Infantry had this to say about the decimation of his unit two days ago: "There was just one guy. One scrawny little guy with glasses. And Rodney's like, 'hey, no problem, I'll deal with it' so he goes up to handcuff the kid. And the kid starts foaming at the mouth! And then he just ups and rips off rodneys head!! With his bare hands!!!"

    General Simmons confirms the private's story. "They're all hyped up on Jolt and Pizza. How can you fight someone that doesn't sleep? They've been playing Doom an Quake longer than I've been alive! How can I fight that? There's no strategy against that."

    According to experts at AMD, the only hope left is in pushing Microsoft even farther into the fight. "The trick is to get them to commit the last of their processing power," states a company spokesman. "Once that's done, then all their Itanium chips should enter into a massive core meltdown, rendering their systems useless, as well as giving off enough radiation to sterilize the whole lot of 'em."

    --
    Sig:
    Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
  69. Some predictions... by rve · · Score: 1

    No definite dates, but before the 21st century is over:
    - The USA will officially be a Christian theocracy, with several bible amendements to the constitution. This may or may not lead to the partial breakup of the US (i.e. a few states leaving the union). It will definitely cause the relations with the allies in Europe to change.
    - NATO will completely replace the united nations. More and more nations will be invited to join, making it a UN, but with only one member in charge instead of five.
    - The enonomic power will shift towards eastern asia, and China and India will emerge as major superpowers.
    - Some company other than Microsoft will dominate completely, once the PC has lost it's significance. Why not an asian company this time? (Nintendo, offering internet access with their game console perhaps?)
    - I'll watch people walk on mars, in 3D, with surround sound.
    - The third world war will not have taken place.
    - I wish I could be optimistic about Africa, but I don't believe in it... unless an affordable vaccine against AIDS is found soon, and the west changes it's aid policy from the present one that is intended to keep the local economies dependent on us, to one that works...
    - Physical health and longevity will be something very wealthy people can buy. Unless the Christian coalition (see my first prediction) disallows the cloning techniques involved.

  70. Fall of the American Empire by dsaxena · · Score: 4
    The greatest single historical event in the next century is going to be the fall of the American (U.S.) empire. This downfall will result due to both pressures from within and from the outside. This is not meant to be anti-American rhetoric. A serious look at the state of this country and the world will show you that we are already headed towards that path.

    As we enter the 21st century, the United States is one of the most hated, if not the most hated nation in the world. While we have done a great job of spreading democracy throughout the world, this expansion has come through rampant abuse of third world nations. At some point these nations are not going to take it anymore and will fight back. As the recent Balkan conflict shows, ethnic groups hold grudges for a long time, and nations such as Iraq, Lybia, Serbia, etc will not forget that we attacked them. Our foreign policy dictates that we should replace the current dictatorships in such countries with U.S. friendly democratic governments, but what will most probably happen is that the leaders in the 2030's or so will be people who grew up and faced much loss due to the U.S.'s agression (whether that agression was warranted or not is irrelevant at this point). These people will want revenge and with the proliferation of nuclear and biochemical technologies, that revenge could be very sweet for them. The problem for the U.S. is that we have not just one, but many enemies. Our armies are already spread thin throughout the world, and a coordinated attack against us on multiple fronts will be devastating.

    In addition to current established enemies, the U.S. will continue to upset more countries, including our so called allies by idiotic plans such as Echelon or other wordwide espionage tactics. Just yesterday, Germany accused the US of using the CIA to conduct economic espionage on German industries.

    When historians of the future look back at the collapse of the US, external threats will be the smallest factors in it's collapse. The internal collapse of the US can be summarized by the following: "What happens when the pot boils over and all that's left are the lumps in the bottom that don't want to stick together?" The US is composed of vastly divergent ethnic groups that have so far been able to live together with an understood peace between them that is enforced through governement policies such as affirmative action. As we go into the next century, the ethnic make up of the U.S will drastically change from being primarilly a white country to a nation where whites, blacks, and Latinos have almost equal shares in the population. With a rise in "minority" population, continued poor socio-economic conditions, and a legal system that continues to blatantly anti-minority, it will take just one or two major events in the next century to spark a nationwide ethnic revolution. The Rodney King veridict and ensuing riots were simply a preview of what is to come.

    "Ethnic" minorities are not the only ones that will say "no more". There are simply far too many different groups in this country to continue living together indefinetely. There is a growing Christian fundamentalist movement that is spreading throughout the country. This movement goes completely against other groups that continue to push their agenda such as gay rights, enviromentalist groups, and other "progressive groups". At some point there will be a clash.

    If you don't believe this, just look at what's happening throughout the world. East Timore, Chechnya(sp), Palestine are just a few examples of what happens when one group of people gets fed up of living under someone elses umbrella.

    The U.S. will probably be the last great empire the world will ever see. With the continuing growth of the communications infrastrcutre, the concept of a large country such as the United States will simply not be needed as small groups of people will be able to self govern and and stay in contact with the rest of the world.

    I don't mean to put down any groups (latinos, blacks, gays, progressives, etc) in the above, but just paint a picture of what might come.

    Now I'll just sit here and wait for the FBI to come get me :)


    --
    Deepak Saxena
    deepak@plexity.net

    --
    Deepak Saxena
    "Computers are useless, they can only give you answers" - Picasso
    1. Re:Fall of the American Empire by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      As we enter the 21st century, the United States is one of the most hated, if not the most hated nation in the world. While we have done a great job of spreading democracy throughout the world, this expansion has come through rampant abuse of third world nations.

      I'm not going to qoute the entire post, but I noticed some striking similarities to Microsoft and its rise and fall in your description of the US.

      1. Microsoft and USA both came into existence as underdogs with high ideals and good ideas.

      2. Both shamelessly exploited everyone around them as often as possible, but with good intentions in the early years.

      3. Both became more and more bloated, inefficient, and corrupt as time went by.

      4. Both are intensly hated by their 'peers'.

      5. Both have been wildly succesfull.

      Interesting, no?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    2. Re:Fall of the American Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict the flashpoint will be in the Southwest (Take a guess as to why), between 2020-2030.

      Here is a good example of how weak and unstable the American Empire has become. The US government can not enforce its laws with out the risk of igniting a civil war. Think of what would happen if the US government tried to enforce immigration laws by expelling all of the hispanics illegally living in the US.

      If the American Empire does break up, the brutality will be _unimaginable_.

    3. Re:Fall of the American Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US falls (which is possible) we're taking out the rest of the world with us.

      The simple fact is there are enough nuts that will press the magic button in time to blow up every last person. Sure... You can destroy the US, but at what price?

    4. Re:Fall of the American Empire by Darchmare · · Score: 1

      >While we have done a great
      >job of spreading democracy
      >throughout the world, this
      >expansion has come through
      >rampant abuse of third world
      >nations.

      In the form of what, billions of dollars of foreign aid?


      - Darchmare
      - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net

      --

      - Jeff
    5. Re:Fall of the American Empire by [Mobius] · · Score: 1
      The problem for the U.S. is that we have not just one, but many enemies.

      You say that the US has a lot of enemies. But you may forget that you have a number of friends as well. (I'm a Canadian). I'm not a big fan of the U.S. all the time, I don't agree with a lot of the policies that you guys have, or the fact that those policies influence our own politicians in the way that they do, but that's life. I've seen over the history of my news-watching years (most notably the IRAQ conflict) that for the most part, the U.S. acts as part of the NATO whole. It might be unfortunate that a lot of the hate from the groups NATO acts against is directed towards America. Canada participates in, and usually fully supports, these actions but does not seem to generate the same animosity that you guys do. I strongly suspect this is simply because we're less visible, and the American forces are the most visible and audiable in an engagement. This may be, however, the price of the "Empire" as you call it. America influences a lot of things (perhaps not as much as you guys think sometimes, but enough) and perhaps as a result, your leaders feel that it's important to contribute their fair share to the "solutions" (we don't need to discuss whether the action is appropriate, that's a whole 'nother arguement :). For good or ill, a course of action is decided and the people with the lion's share of the influence contribute the lion's share of the resources to implementing the solution. You guys probably don't have to, but it seems to me like it's an act of good faith on your part, and I suspect that as much as many people dislike the influence the American Empire has on their own lives, they respect and appreciate the resources that same Empire contributes to problems that are not it's own.

      The US is composed of vastly divergent ethnic groups that have so far been able to live together with an understood peace between them that is enforced through governement policies such as affirmative action. As we go into the next century, the ethnic make up of the U.S will drastically change from being primarilly a white country to a nation where whites, blacks, and Latinos have almost equal shares in the population.

      I think you're missing the point of diversity. I would hope that as we (as a world) move into the next century, the general consensus will be that programs like affirmative action will be unnecesary because most of the population will realize that diversity benefits everyone. Different natural strenghts, skills, history and perspectives combined give an organization or even country an incredible edge. Understanding and respect for everyone's culture is such a benefit to the whole.

      You can't force this understanding though, only education will give a country this kind of advantage. Unfortunately, old hatreds die hard, but as one generation fades out, and a more educated generation takes over, I hope that perhaps the U.S. will adopt some of Canada's policies on cultural diversity (as it already has begun to do).

      This isn't to say there won't be tension. That's inevitable, (just look at situation in Atlantic Canada here between Native and Non-Native fishermen). :)

      Oh well, at least you're all able to defend yourselves in the case of trouble. :( (Sorry, just a dig at those rediculous firearm laws, couldn't resist).
      --

      --
      M
    6. Re:Fall of the American Empire by juggleme · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your post, but I don't think this is the last empire the world will ever see. How many people thought that the fall of Rome would be the last empire? I don't know the answer either, but I'm guessing they couldn't conceive of something like that, just like we couldn't conceive of that. But I'm sure it will happen.

      OK, I'm done rambling now...

  71. And more bad news... by Pendulum · · Score: 1

    Overpopulation. With all the medical 'miracles' allowing people to live longer (and probably breed longer as well) we'll see an increase in world population because people just won't die. In many places in the world, it's already an enormous problem, and it certainly isn't getting any better.
    I predict that the Roman Catholic Church will revise it's stand on birth control and abortion by 2020, as it becomes aparent that there will not be enough resources to sustain the human race. However, I also think this will come too late.
    I also predict that governments will start putting a cap on how many children you can have.
    Canada (with all our open spaces) will start looking like a pretty good place to live; especially since global warming will make the northern areas a little more hospitable. Same for Russia, etc.
    Pure water will be at a premium by 2010, or earlier. (Tank girl, anyone?)
    Cremation of bodies will become mandatory.

    And lots of cool things will happen as well, I'm sure.

  72. Re:Possabilities... by mohaine · · Score: 1

    Nuclear weapons don't just explode (nuclear power plants, on the other hand...)


    Nuclear power plants can't explode(at least nuclear wise). They can get a little hot though, and Spew nuclear waste everywhere.

    --
    (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  73. 2002 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the statue of Liberty shall be replaced by
    the statue of the Penguin ( which again means liberty and freedom ) ;-)

  74. energy in 2002 by FalseConsciousness · · Score: 2
    Expect commercially viable (i.e. good price point) petrochemical-based fuel cells to replace diesel in commercial transportation soon (next 2-5 years). This will make a small dent in the deplection of fossil fuels, but more importantly will introduce technologies which will make it easier to deploy industrial-quality engines using alternative fuel sources.

    This is possibly not all that exciting as fuel cell technology has been touted since at least the 1970s, but it will pave the way for other, more gee-whiz tech to be used in transportation and HVAC ...

    --

  75. Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by Herr+Direktor · · Score: 1

    You are right that society in general is moving toward a total apathy of religion. But this doesn't mean that religion will fade away.

    I believe religion will soon come under attack. According to the bible of religion ('The Bible'), political rulers will mount an all-out attack on apostate religion worldwide. As it is described, it will be motivated by a desire to obtain the wealth and control of religion. And interestingly, this will done not by the governments themselves, but by proxy: apparently, by the United Nations.

    Today, that is only being seen in a fairly passive way: go to Europe and see how many churches are now discos or other things. But according to the prophecy, God will use the nations, through the UN, to totally destroy apostate religion: they will "hate" religion, and make it "devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and completely burn her with fire." This does not sound like a passive fall into obsurity. (Revelation 17:15-17)

    As soon as government finishes the task, and turns to destroy the people of God, God destroys all world governments and sets up the utopian 'Kingdom of God' over the Earth. That's what the Lord's Prayer is talking about with "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

    This event should have a fairly large impact on some of the other /. predictions.

    1. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by ranton · · Score: 1

      Will religion fade away into obscurity? While it may never go away, I think the answer to this question is a definite yes. With your biblical prediction babble aside, there is overwhelming reason why this will happen.

      With today being an age of great intellectual thought, more and more people are becoming athiests. Almost the only people who still believe in a diety are :

      1) Brainwashed by their environment,
      2) Suffering from problems only a god could help them with, or
      3) Illogical and uneducated individuals.
      Hopefully with better schooling and genetically enhanced human minds, idiocy will someday be only a memory. That takes care of #3. Also, with more people being atheist, less children will be brought up in religous homes. Slowly #1 will fade away as well. Im not sure what to do about #2 though.

      After a few generations, religion will not be as prevelent in our society as it now is. Religion will never completely go away, or maybe I am too pessimistic to believe that such a utopia could exist.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      First, A Warning, this is going to become a religious debate, if you aren't interested then skip it now.
      Will religion fade away into obscurity? While it may never go away, I think the answer to this question is a definite yes. With your biblical prediction babble aside, there is overwhelming reason why this will happen.

      With today being an age of great intellectual thought, more and more people are becoming athiests. Almost the only people who still believe in a diety are :

      1) Brainwashed by their environment,
      2) Suffering from problems only a god could help them with, or
      3) Illogical and uneducated individuals.
      Hopefully with better schooling and genetically enhanced human minds, idiocy will someday be only a memory. That takes care of #3. Also, with more people being atheist, less children will be brought up in religous homes. Slowly #1 will fade away as well. Im not sure what to do about #2 though.

      After a few generations, religion will not be as prevelent in our society as it now is. Religion will never completely go away, or maybe I am too pessimistic to believe that such a utopia could exist.


      Alright, since you seem to have to drop down to insulting anyone who believes in a deity of any kind I'll assume you definately believe that there is NOT a deity. Now, there is no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a deity of some kind in existence. Agnostics far out number Atheists, and there are plenty of perfectly reasonable intelligent, un brainwashed people who believe in God or some other deity.
      I would like to hear your argument for the non-existence of a deity, and hence I will outline my argument that a deity must exist:

      1. It is agreed that life can not be created from non-life in a scientific manner.

      2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.

      3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.

      4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.

      As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit. If I am going to believe in something which has no evidence whatsoever then I shall choose the option which makes the most sense and promises the most reward.

      Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other, not to rape each other, not to steal from each other. All of this is placed into a framework which can be taught to people. I really don't see how you can view a world with no religion as a Utopia. I can easily agree that a world without any corrupt religion would be wonderful....

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by celtic+heretic · · Score: 1

      As you have just illustrated religion cannot fade away because the social phenomenon called religion is not based on an irrationalism and belief in the supernatural. It is a system of beliefs centred on a single value. You speak in an anti-theistic manner so I suspect your highest values are rationalISM, humanISM and scientISM... all of which any learned (non-bigoted) person today recognizes has no more (or less) validity than deistic religions. Why is that? Lack of absolute certainty. You have no way of knowing anything. What you _know_ will likely change with new discoveries and then you will believe you have the Real Truth when you possess those discoveries.



      If what I said is nonsense,
      I'm making a point with it.
      If what I said makes perfect sense,
      you obviously missed the point.

      --

    4. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agnostics, Athiests & "Free Thinkers" currently make up roughly 16-20% of the world population.
      There is a significant difference between agnostics and athiests... Athiests know for a fact that there is no god, agnostics don't believe in god, but don't dismiss the possibility that there is one.

      Scientifically speaking, one shouldn't dismiss the possibility of anything...

    5. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by bcboy · · Score: 1

      Well, no. ;) There may be good arguments for a deity, but these are just false. It is not agreed that life can not be created from non-life. The most widely supported (by evidence) theories of life propose exactly that.

      The other statements are similarly false (e.g. there is a progression from a common origin, both in the fossil record, and in DNA).

      b.c.

    6. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by phil+reed · · Score: 1
      1. It is agreed that life can not be created from non-life in a scientific manner.

      It is not agreed. There has been considerable work done on discovering pathways leading to the first self-replicating molecule. After that, it's just evolution. Take a look at this. It's a couple of years old, but it shows some of the research paths being followed.

      2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.

      'Impractical' is hardly scientific. But, to address your point more directly, take a look at the 1994 Scientific American for a possibility. (Sorry that I don't have a more precise reference handy, but you'll find it.) Just because you find it impractical doesn't mean it's impossible.

      3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.

      Believed by who? You've got to read more than what the Institute for Creation Research publishes. This is just a handwaving objection, and can dismissed unless you can provide more justification.

      4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.

      Actually, there is considerable suggestion of this very thing. Take a look here - I recommend you get rapidly to the section labelled "Genetic Drift" and later "Incorporating Genetics into Evolutionary Theory".

      As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.

      No, actually all we can see is that you don't know what you're talking about. Your objections have no basis.


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    7. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by ranton · · Score: 1

      As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.

      Science does not say this at all. It only admits that everything we "know" as true is somehow flawed by something we havent discovered yet. That is why theories are constantly changed. Science doesnt care if it is the absolute "truth", but as long as we know enough about physics to accomplish something useful (such as flight), thats good enough.

      If I am going to believe in something which has no evidence whatsoever then I shall choose the option which makes the most sense and promises the most reward.

      Science, by definition, is based on the evidence at hand. Religion is the only belief system based on no evidence. Also, psychology (to name only one scientific discipline) has proven that many things which we percieve as "common sense" are very flawed by our own perceptions. Scientific research comes much closer to finding the correct answer to a problem than commone sense. And if a politician was to proclaim that he could end all poverty and crime, would you then elect him as president based on these rediculous promises.

      Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other, not to rape each other, not to steal from each other.

      Actually, it is our parents and other indirect guardians that teach these values to us. Without these figures telling us that the Bible's moral rules should be followed, we wouldn't care what the Bible says. Even with the absence of religion, human decency and morals will not disappear, they will simply be taught using a different medium.

      Now, there is no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a deity of some kind in existence. Agnostics far out number Atheists, and there are plenty of perfectly reasonable intelligent, un brainwashed people who believe in God or some other deity.

      There is an alien ship floating above the earth right now with a missile pointed at the White House but we cant see it because it is cloaked. If you dont believe me then prove that it isnt true. You cant. Do not presume that simply because you cannot disprove something doesnt mean that it definetly exists. You must first prove something before you can expect someone to be able to disprove ite. Agnostics are more abundant because while many people are realizing that the religions of the world are incorrect, they cant come to terms with the fact that there may be no meaning for their existance. They still need to think that some supreme being which is looking out for them still does exist. And the definition for religion and irrational (belief in something with no proof) are very similar. That means anyone believing in a religion is being somewhat irrational (synonyms for irrational include absurb, foolish, illogical, and unreasonable). While it may not mean that religous people are idiots, they are definetly not rational human beings.

      1. It is agreed that life can not be created from non-life in a scientific manner.

      2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.

      3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.

      4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.

      Just because we cant do something or arent sure how it is done doesnt mean it is impossible. Just because we couldnt create electricity a thousand years ago doesnt mean it didnt exist. We did not invent Oxygen, we just discovered it. The same holds true for your above points. Why is it hard to believe that the universe could just have always been there? (im not saying that is my belief but it is a possibility) Just because we cant understand it doesnt mean it might not exist. But to create a sentient being to describe such far off ideas simply goes too far. If I was to believe that a potatoe like vegetable created the entire universe it would be no different than to believe that a human like god did so.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Religion will always exist, but as you seem o think, the prominentreligion may be naturalism/atheism. This is different from no religion, as all worlviews are a religion of sorts.
      For instance, we may get rid of Catholic priests and instead follow "science priests". Why? Based on what evidence?
      Science explains motion and action in time and space. Can we infer that all that exists is said motion in time and space? No. Would this be logical? No, no more (aruguably much less) then Christianity or Buddism is logical.

      In regards to being brainwashed by their enviornment, how do you avoid the colclusion that the only reason people believe there is no religion is because of their enviornment? Basically, you can't. Also, it seems that curently, the only improvement is that people are being brainwashed in a religion with science, the useful yet flawed tool, as its god. Big improvement.

      As for today being a age of great intellectual thought: BBAAAHHHAHHHHAAA!!!
      The average farmer in America 200 years ago was much better read and much more philosophical then the average person today.
      Why? Because we have more entertainment. How much of our lives is consumed in frivoulusness?
      We are also much more stressed. The average farmer had much mindless labor to do, and had in that labor time to think. He would read at night and ponder during the day. Our days are so filled with crud that we have no time for learning or reflection.
      What advantages do we have in this era? Better scientific knowledge. We have a decent understanding of electricity, of kaos theory, of Einstein's theory of relativity, and are approaching a general relitivity theorm.
      Also we have Nihilism, relitivism, and other such "isms" that are the conclusion of a world without an absolute. Basically, you define yourself as the absolute, which is darn silly. We would be looked at as ludicrist if we said that when we walked, we stayed still and moved the world under us like a big treadmill. However, that may be the case for one person, and the universe might really revolve around me. There is no way you can prove that it doesn't. But it strikes us as ludicrist.
      This is our great discovery. We get there by assuming, and by being just as close minded and dogmatic as other religions.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    9. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other unless, of course, those "others" believe in a different religion...

    10. Re:Will Religion fade away into obscurity? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      It is not agreed. There has been considerable work done on discovering pathways leading to the first self-replicating molecule. After that, it's just evolution. Take a look at this. It's a couple of years old, but it shows some of the research paths being followed.


      Ok, the existence of nothing, as in not space, not dust, not a universe, not stars, etc... Nothing. And then the spontaneous creation of a universe through some mischance is what 'science' proposes. If this doesn't seem absurd to you I'm not sure what I can say to make you see my point.
      I am not saying that belief in God is more valid than belief in the Big Bang, I am saying that they are both equally absurd but that it makes more sense to lean towards the greatest reward until some conclusive proof can be found.
      I've never yet heard of or found a scientist who is respected among the community who will say 'YES. This is the way it happened, definately.' I am a christian by choice, though an agnostic by inclination. Atheists irritate me because the usually propose to have some kind of scientific backing which turns out to be some blurb they were taught in high school which they have no support for. When I find a truly defensible argument for the Big Bang then I may perhaps change me views.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  76. Genetics: Individuality, not homogeneaity by jake_the_blue_spruce · · Score: 1

    > The human race becomes homogeneous, boring and > culturally unified. Genetic engineering has > eliminated disease, prolonged life and destroyed > biological individuality.
    I disagree completely. Look at the individuality people express in clothes and cosmetic appearances. I think genetic engineering will lead to a wealth of individual expression.

    For instance, what if you could have purple eyes? Naturally purple hair? Feline eyes? Elf-like ears? Gills? Optimize your body for a particular sport? Few would pick to conform to one homogeneous physical standard, when it is commonplace and easily attainable.

    --
    "There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
  77. Eugenics by drivers · · Score: 1

    About that genetic purity crap:
    Eugenics was very popular around 1890 through WWII. In USENET they say that when anyone mentiones the Nazis in a debate that is pretty much the end of any rational discussion, so I won't. There are many rational reasons why Eugenics is lot logically valid. I have them in my genetics class notes (at home) but you could probably get a better explanation from any genetics professor.

    1. Re:Eugenics by awaterl · · Score: 1

      Forgive me for a minor degree of pedantry, but I think that you would contribute much more to the discussion were you able to transfer the "rational reasons" of concern from your notes to your head, and then to your post. Simply stating that the reasons in question exist, and referring us to professors of genetics, benefits the discussion much less than would have their elucidation.

  78. Obtypo by starwave · · Score: 1

    that's "millennium" right? journos... tsch! (not a reference to c shell...)

  79. First Prediction by Darksky · · Score: 1

    January 1st, 2000 A.D. : Largest collective hangover in the history of Man.....

    --
    01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011
  80. 21st Century Prediction: Ideal hermaphrodites. by strredwolf · · Score: 1
    I predict that in the future, depending on how badly we screw up ourselves, humans will evolve into hermaphrodites (or intersexuals). Hormones would be apropriately balanaced and vary over time.

    This is similar to Bernard Dove's Chakat species.



    ---
    Spammed? Click here for free slack on how to fight it!

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  81. Why robots won't start wars... by the_tsi · · Score: 2

    Making money, owning property, starting wars, etc. are all (on some level) done for one reason: sex.
    Humans do these things to increase their own 'attractiveness' to others in order to either attract mates, put them in a "higher" class, or provide for offspring. That's what it breaks down to in the end. Yeah, it's Freudian, but it's right.
    When AI "organisms" reach the level of intelligence of humans, they certainly won't be there long. Whether they reach this by human hands or their own self-development started at a lower level, they *will* have an evolutionary rate faster than we can imagine (as stated in the predictions above). Whether AI is one sentient form spread through hundreds of devices or many separate entities (which of these actually happens we probably won't be able to determine even after it happens), they'll be learning and building themselves to be better without the need for money, land, etc.
    But I diverge -- the point is, being smarter than us (not smarter... more intelligent), they'll realize that wars, etc., don't give them any advantage, evolutionary or otherwise, and will just go on with their own "culture." (Besides, they don't need real estate the way we do; space is great when you don't need oxygen and you want to vent heat off your CPUs...)

    -Chris
    (Who hopes they read this and let him live when the wars DO start.)

    1. Re:Why robots won't start wars... by skip277 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Why do so many people think that AI's will be instantly "human" level? I think the first AI at least will have to develop somewhat along the lines of a human child (albeit MUCH faster). So if you ask me, the best way to make sure that AI's don't start wars is to make sure that they have good "parents". They need creators, but the will need someone to love them. Teach them, as you would your own child, that hurting and killing are wrong. Teach them kindness and compassion and ethics. Perhaps if we do these things, they will be good children and take care of us when they surpass us. This is the dream of all parents.

      Skippy

      --
      "False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
  82. 2045 : Really Really Big Super collider completed by skankydog · · Score: 1

    Here's my prediction. In 2045, the world communtity completes the Really Really Big Super-Conducting Super Collider to study the behavior of sub atomic particles in conditions similar to the Big Bang. It spans across the equator. However due to an unanticpated quantum effect, the sub atomic particles escape causing a massive chain reaction. This event was dubbed the Really Really Big Bang by subsequnce physisists who evoluted eons later in the new universe.

  83. this really takes the cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry Jon, but this is one of the most
    vacuous little tidbits I've ever seen. Maybe
    that was the point, but it's still pretty
    ridiculous.

  84. About that genetic engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Having dealt with computers, statistics and non-linear dynamics for a good long while, and having looked at the way "genetic engineers" work (the bro-in-law is in biotech), it's pretty clear that we won't have genetic purity and boredom by the end of the next century.

    Every time they "fix" one gene, there will be 200 other genes that will be affected in an unexpected way. The balance is so delicate and complex, that I suspect that we'll have a real mess of accidental odd diseases and genetic malfunctions. They will require so much of our resources to keep in check, that we won't have time to do anything like making perfect people.

    Look what's happened when we've tried even trivial stuff - the German biotech industry made flowers that had a gene altered to produce a prettier blue. What was the side effect? That whole plant can only survive in a very narrow temperature range, between about 15 and 20 degrees (C). That was 5 (?) years ago, and they still don't understand why. They may understand how a few of the genes work, but they don't understand the interactions between such. Do you think these arrogant idiots are going to lead us to Utopia (note: Greek for "no place")? No more likely than everyone else who has promised that for thousands of years. More likely they'll have to cause a massive screw-up or ten before people come to they're senses.

  85. Prediction: food surplus, ever cheaper commodities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read anything written by the economist Julian Simon: increases in food production have always outpaced increases in population, thanks to the ingenuity of mankind.

  86. the future by Signal+11 · · Score: 2
    It doesn't matter how the future turns out.. good, bad, whether aliens make first contact, whether Bill Gates becomes president, whether computer surpass humans in raw intelligence.

    What matters is that we should strive to improve our world, build on each other's work, and make our dreams a reality. You want to make the world a better place, invent technologies beyond your wildest dreams, have peace on earth and good will towards men? It's easy - pickup a keyboard, a pencil, a phone, anything... and start changing the world.

    --

  87. Case in point: by Rabbins · · Score: 1

    One way this might work was outlined in L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach. In it he
    envisions an alternate-America democracy in which anyone who wants to can show up for
    Congress. However, most people don't care to make the trek to the Capitol (intentionally parked
    on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, as I recall) so they delegate proxies to vote for them. If
    you like the way a potential proxy thinks, you can register to have him or her cast votes on your
    behalf. If they tick you off sufficiently, you unregister. I can easily see advances in digital
    democracy leading to citizens being allowed to delegate different proxies for different issues.


    This system already exists.... for publicly held corporations.

    Every single share holder is welcome to show up at the annual shareholders' meeting. Whether you own 1 or 1 billion shares, you have the same opportunity to be heard.

  88. First Prediction: January 1, 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as quickly as they get ticked off, everyone will suddenly realize -- ANOTHER BIG PARTY for January 1, 2001.

  89. Here's one prediction that's certain... by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1
    2050: People will still be making silly predictions about the future.

    Very few predictions about the future ever come true, and when they do, it tends to be sheer luck: probably the most important revolution of the 90's, the Internet, was "predicted" by William Gibson, but even he admits that whe he created cyberspace, it wasn't a prediction as much as something cool he thought up.

    From Nostradamus to Jules Verne, predictions rarely come true or if they do, they do so either far away in the future or much faster than they thought.

    Predictions are interesting for one thing, however: they show us the particular mentality of the time. Right now, all the craze in predictions is nanotechnology and the colonisation of Mars. Ten years ago, it was about insanely fast (read: Pentium) computers in every home.

    Predictions are more a display of our hopes, dreams and fears. And in that respect, they're interesting. Cause otherwise, most of them are stated to come about long after most of us die, anyway.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  90. Re:Prediction: food surplus, ever cheaper commodit by spencerogden · · Score: 1

    Julian Simon is the authority on subjects like this. As far as I know he was the only one in the business who was not consistently wrong. Whenever I see something new on the subject I wonder what his take would have been on it.

  91. Everyone reading this will die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, you'll have to live to at least 110 years old to make it into the 22nd century and medicine won't have figured out immortality yet. There may be at least 140,000 human genes to understand and it may only work on embryos.

  92. Stupid People revolt. by ien · · Score: 1

    I'm inclined to suspect that sometime in the future (say 10 years, no intelligent way of rationalizing when this will happen accurately). Here's how it'll go down:
    (1) An oligarchy (?) is elected (forced) to rule the world. Every country is commanded by this group of highly intelligent, learned, and rather average people. Its composed of mostly college professors on sabbatical, historians, nobel prize winners, and others from important backgrounds.
    (2) The first law that is imposed is a world-wide respect for intelligence
    (3) A high school student in some lame ass town in the mid-west city thinks this is infringing on his justice, and starts a small riot during lunch period.
    (4) The news is carried world-wide.
    (5) An impassioned majority of "stupid people" demand their freedom to be "not intelligent", as intelligence is dependent of perspective (like tallness, strength, and death). They form an anti-government organization, calling themselves "Stupidity has intelligence too".
    (6) S.H.I.T. is a world-wide power within days, though being mainly stationed in the South of the North American Continent.
    (7) In no more than a few weeks, the society that the world government had envisioned is destroyed. Schools are burnt. Books are thrown back into the sea, from whence they came. Worst of all, every college student must return home to their parents.
    (8) Several years later, once the revolutionaries realize they don't have much money, and have grown fat and lazy (again), people begin to reorganize government. The model for this government is taken from an old episode of a popular T.V. show that aired sometime between now and then. The world is at peace again.

    Thats the summary of the victorious rise of S.H.I.T. We should all remind ourselves that someday, when we least expect, some stupid ass mofo is gonna beat us down with a over-sized mallet. If thats not enough reason to eradicate all of them now, i don't know what is...

  93. My own predictions... by RISCy+Business · · Score: 2

    January 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2000
    - Rioting in isolated locations and major cities due to excessively large parties, people sick of Prince's "1999," drunk partygoers, and isolated power outages.
    - Many computers die. Tech support lines and phone switches are pushed to capacity and beyond as frantic customers call their computer manufacturers demanding assistance.

    January 4th, 2000
    - All power is restored in all areas, riots are calmed, things are back to normal except for busy clean up crews.
    - Phone switches still straining to handle load from customers who didn't get through in the first three days.

    January 23rd, 2000
    - Phones work well again, all customers blown off, or helped. BBB flooded with complaints about companies that blew off out of warranty customers.

    Sometime in 2001
    - Space station suffers setbacks. Gets put off further.

    Sometime in 2005
    - First totally software-driven AI passes turing test with flying colors.

    Sometime in 2009
    - First totally hardware-driven AI passes turing test with flying colors; research and construction of experimental androids begins at colleges and universities around the world.

    Sometime in 2010
    - Scientists announce first successful human clone. UN immediately bans commercial cloning and regulates cloning for research excessively.
    - Space station delayed even further.
    - Third world countries getting restless because they're not getting a piece of the technology pie.

    Sometime in 2011
    - The great Internet Collapse will occur; the end-user/client-side/CPE equipment's bandwidth capabilities far outweighing those of many routers and backbones, the Internet is overloaded to the point of a colossal cascading failure, taking many backbones down for several days. Service is restored, with some difficulty, but things are much slower and much less reliable. IPv6 is determined to be insuffecient, and IPv7 work begins by the IETF.

    Sometime in 2015
    - Int'l Space Station *finally* finished, several trillion dollars over budget.
    - "Great Quake" of the San Andreas fault occurs, measuring =>7.0 on the richter scale. Many buildings, including 'earthquake proof' buildings fail structurally. Thousands are killed in the falling rubble and trapped inside the buildings. Highways are destroyed, and many parts of California are isolated by the damage. Building codes are made stricter to keep public opinion of officials from dropping.
    - Many earthquakes shake the 'ring of fire' in the pacific, killing thousands and causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Computer industry, still reliant on Taiwan, is hit hard. Prices skyrocket.

    Sometime in 2016
    - Third world countries have had it, minor wars and skirmishes break out. The UN tries to abolish envy.

    Sometime in 2020
    - William H. Gates III passes away, leaves vast majority of wealth to charities. Children sue for being 'cheated' out of the wealth.

    Sometime in 2025
    - Intelligent androids are perfected and enter active use, working dangerous jobs only at first, far outperforming their previous human workers.

    Sometime in 2026
    - Laws are passed giving intelligent androids rights of their own, including the right to safer working conditions as safety has deteriorated due to the 'disposable' nature of androids.

    Sometime in 2040
    - No home on earth is without a computer; the Internet is the only means of communication, traditional phone switches having been replaced by real-time computers handling SS8 switching protocols. The US now has over 800 unique area codes. The phone companies warn congress that they will have to expand area codes to 4 digits within 2 years.

    Sometime in 2041
    - Yet another US stock market crash. But surprisingly, it changes little, only serving to reduce android use due to their still excessive cost, causing the economy to rebound before the end of the year.

    Sometime in 2050
    - US declares itself in charge of the world, proxy-ruling with the UN. World War III breaks out, hundreds of computers set to trying to figure out how to win the war with as little bloodshed as possible. Interestingly, cracking of enemy computers is not tried.

    Sometime in 2052
    - Nuclear weapons are brought out of storage, manufacture quickly escalates, all parties assuming that a buildup a la the Cold War will deter everyone from attacking them.

    Sometime in 2057
    - An accident at a nuclear weapons manufacturing plant and storage facility somewhere in the world sets off a chain reaction, destroying 20 nuclear warheads, killing hundreds immediately, and causing a massive fallout cloud that kills hundreds of others.
    - The facility claims sabotage by another country. Tensions heat up incredibly rapidly, and all negotiations and treaties begin to break down.

    Sometime in 2058
    - A trigger-happy world suffers another nuclear accident, a much smaller one that only destroys and irradiates a single small town. US issues a ban on all nuclear warheads via UN, but it is ignored by other countries, which have withdrawn their UN delegates.

    Sometime in 2059
    - Tensions are too high for safety; every home has a bomb shelter, and there are massive community bombshelters. Air raid sirens are posted on every street corner. Attempting to crack the enemy's systems cannot be tried, as the Internet has been dismantled, turning into massive WANs within allied countries.

    Sometime in 2060
    - A country somewhere in the world testfires a new fusion weapon that has power equivalent to 1,000,000 of the most powerful Hydrogen bombs. The UN issues a declaration banning further research and development on said weapon, for the safety of the world, and that all prototypes and research must be destroyed. The declaration is ignored.

    Sometime in 2061
    - The end of the world. The fusion weapon developed in 2060 is fired on a country. A hunter-killer missile is unable to stop it, and the entire country is wiped out. Nuclear and fusion weapons suddenly fire around the world, hitting their targets, and setting into motion a chain reaction that destroys nearly half the continents and cuases extreme devastation to anything not destroyed. Only a few people are left living, but the world is unlivable due to the nuclear winter.

    Around 2090
    - Human race dies. World still too radioactive for living. Cockroaches still rule the world, but they aren't the giant mutated beasts as advertized in movies.

    About 4 billion years later.
    - Evolution produces another sentient and intelligent race. Race progresses very much like humanity did.

    About 6 billion years after that.
    - Sun burns out. Everything dies. Game over, man. Game over.

    Take these predictions with a grain of salt, maybe. Who knows, I could be true! All I know is I sure as hell won't live to see most of 'em. :)
    -RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru

  94. My prediction for the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    January 1, 2001: All the tight ass overly anal people who kept smirking about 2000 not being the first year of the new millenium spend the day in confusion and regret when they realise they missed out on a bunch of really good new millenium parties the year before

  95. Older predictions by lythander · · Score: 1

    Having spent some time studying meteorology, I'm interested in finding some of these peoples' older predictions and seeing which of them came true. I suppose Clarke is the only one around long enough to have made any that might have come true. Anyone know of any?

  96. Infinte Jest by dgoodman · · Score: 1
    2003: First (officially) corporate sponsored bills make the rounds through the U.S. congress (that is, bills with adverts at the end =)

    2004: U.N. adopts subsidized time

    Year of the Trial-Sized Dove Bar: Nigh everything in the U.S. is franchised out: every restaurant, every general store, every road. The U.S. government begins selling off smaller offices and branches to make ends meet.

    Year of the Depends Undergarments: American mega-corps, in light of the reduced authority and power of the U.S. government, declare thier sovereignty; Microsoft becomes the world's first corporatation-state nuclear power. and so forth...

    1. Re:Infinte Jest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget the year of the Whopper, and the year of the Perdue Wonderchicken.

    2. Re:Infinte Jest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget the year of the Whopper and the year of the Perdue Wonderchicken.

  97. Technological myopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see predictions for the future it amazes me that tech people often forget how little the computer is really used in the world. Only recently has the computer really entered mainstream society in the US. I remember back when Novell bought WordPerfect, a large part of Novell's big wigs did not even have computers, and I'm talking at work here, not home. I would guess that for every person like myself, (a freak with 6 networked computers) there are 5+ without a computer at all. And I'm just talking the US here.

  98. Overpopulation does not cause famine by jpatokal · · Score: 1
    By 2010, a third-world country will suffer a huge combination of famine and plague due to overpopulation. Another one will happen by 2015, and the UN will start doing things to reduce the population growth as we approach 8 billion, such as requiring freely availble birth control and abortion in some areas. The Vatican will very quietly object as to not want to appear in favor of famine and plague.

    People have been predicting widespread famine since Malthus; it hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen. There is more than enough food in the world today, the problem is in distribution. As P.J. O'Rourke points out in All the Trouble in the World, democratic countries, no matter how poor, never have famines -- it's the countries run by dictators (eg. China during the Mao era, the USSR during Stalin's rule) or wracked by civil war (Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, etc) that have famine, since food supplies are used as a political tool.

    In addition, the population growth rate has been slowing down worldwide for quite some time now, with many industrialized countries now having negative population growth (excluding immigration). The world's population is unlikely to top 10 billion, and in a few decades it will actually start dropping -- even without famine, war or pestilence.

    Cheers,
    -j.

    1. Re:Overpopulation does not cause famine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's right, famine is caused by lack of food. There are indeed food surpluses, and the main reason most people on the planet our undernourished is because they can't afford to pay for the food. The "distribution" problem is a bit of a red herring. The food is usually close by, it's just usually too expensive for people. Read A Green History of the World for more on this.

      Population growth has indeed been slowing on a percentage basis, but the actual numbers per year are increasing (as we'd expect; a larger base of people makes percentage-wise increases look smaller). Currently we see on the order of 100 million more people per year, and this rate is still rising. Given that the human population is bottom-heavy (mostly young people) there is quite a bit of momentum; more than a few decades worth, actually.

      Given that oil production (the basis of our society) will be hitting it's peak in 10-20 years (the petroleum industry's own predictions), and that most of the remaining oil is in the middle east, I would the next 20-30 years to be a rather miserable time.

  99. Year 2001 by FooGoo · · Score: 1

    60% of the earths population is dead...don't say I didn't warn you.

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  100. How we can pretend the future is here... by nano-second · · Score: 1

    This is how we can pretend that future is here!

    10. A revolutionary 3-dimensional GUI takes the world by storm. It runs on Linux.

    Wear those silly blue and red 3D glasses, then everyone will at least THINK you're looking at something 3D!

    9. Human memory backups -- trouble cramming for that history final? Temporarily swap out your chemistry notes.

    Human memory backups... commonly known as cheat notes!

    8. Conscious computers overthrow the despotic, illogical rule of humanity, establishing a pastoral eden shared by the people of the world and machines of loving grace

    Beat yourself over the head with a baseball bat... if you do it long enough, you'll believe this too! (for less permanent results, use NERF)

    7. Sexbots

    Replace your Real Doll's face with a CRT and surf for pr0n during usage. (Not suitable for those bathtub adventures)

    6. A sect of quasi-zen mystics unlocks the secrets of the human mind, and discovers brains of computer geeks contain unusually high concentrations of midi-chlorians

    Warning: do not remove brain to test this theory! Just assume it's true (less painful).

    5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.

    Brain Recipe:

    3 packets jello (any flavour)
    1 packet Koolaid (purple flavour)
    3 cups water
    2 cups flour
    pinch of salt
    dash of lemon juice
    OR use 1 packet Insta-Mind(tm)
    Mix completely, then let set for 4 hours.
    Apply electrodes to head, and transfer electric impulses to set mixture.
    Remove brain, replace with mixture, pouring carefully.

    4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.

    Start having object oriented discussions at supper with your family today!

    3. Space-age cereal that stays crunchy in milk longer than 30 seconds

    Try Cap'n Crunch. It's disturbing how long it stays crunchy. And on another note, given it's bland tan colour, why do the ingredients list FOOD COLOURING?! (what colour was it before?!)

    2. The aliens land, and Steve Jobs is their leader. That otherworldly, floppyless iMac thing had to be designed by extraterrestrials.

    Make sure your house is colour coordinated to the iMac flavours so that you'll fit in when the aliens take over.

    1. Intra-neural internet links -- mentioned by Katz, but so damn cool!

    Stare at your web browser intently, form a picture of the page you want. Hold that image in your mind. Start a rhythmic chant of the URL. Pretty soon, some co-worker, friend, or family member will link you to the site, just to shut you up.

    Voila! The future is here!

    ---

    --
    I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
  101. Nuclear arms aren't THAT bad... by the_tsi · · Score: 1

    I honestly don't think humans could destroy the Earth even if we tried. Yeah, we can wipe out almost all life as we know it (ie. ourselves) without much effort. But the natural state of our planet tends towards balance. Nature is a stronger force than we *in the long run*. Scortched Earth may not be a nice place to raise children for a few thousand or hundred thousand years (which although a long time by our standards is just a few seconds in the Great History Of Time(tm)), there's no way we could kill *everything* let alone destroy the planet itself.

    Granted, I sure don't want to be living in NYC when some other country presses the big red button.
    (Maybe afterwards I would wish that I had been there...)

    -Chris

  102. 2004: "Jimdoze" software bankrupts MicroSoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2004 a college student named Jim gets so frustrated with using buggy MS products that he writes an open source clone of the MicroSoft operating system and office application suite. The authors name is merged into the name of the emulated product. Open source advocates seeing a market much larger than UNIX clones immediately jump on this bandwagon and produce a much more desirable version. MicroSoft sales plumment and company goes bankrupt. The country goes into a temporary recession as growth mutual funds are pulled down by the collapse of MS. Boomers have to leave early retirement and go to work again.

  103. What happed to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2001 after returning to the moon we find a large, black monolith that appears to be devoid of any features whatsover, but appears to be from an advanced civilization...

    It is purchased by Bill Gates and the technology is never heard from again.

  104. Neural control statement by J05H · · Score: 1

    I got an email asking for a little coroboration
    on my "My informed guess is that there are applications NOW that are using neural feedback." statement. Here's my response:
    Check out:
    IBVA
    A while ago on slashdot, there was an article about some
    British doctors that had (bells and trumpets) gotten a
    quadrapelegic person to "type" using a yes/no brain implant.
    This sounds like a way-cool advance, but there were US
    neuro surgeons doing more advanced work in the 70s.
    The one that immediately comes to mindis a documentary
    that I saw when I was little. It had this blind man who
    had had a 13 (I think) pin plug installed, with leads
    going deep into the visual cortex. I'm assuming his optic
    nerve had been damaged. Anyway, the doctors working with
    him got a system together that would "display" Braille
    characters for him. They appeared as grids of fuzzy dots,
    but he was able to read them. This was in the mid 70s,
    so the research probably continued.
    Also, there's an excellent Scientific American Frontiers
    show that is all about neural control. It has an Air Force
    test pilot who is helping design a neural pitch/yaw system
    for faster flying, and an MIT prof who has a sailboat
    kinked to accept brain input. I heard that he recently
    completed a round-the world trip using the system.
    You can probably rent it at a good video store, or order
    a tape/transcript from PBS or Chedd Angiers (the producers).
    Hope this helps a little.
    J

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  105. 2015: First fatality on the driverless freeway by Yogurt · · Score: 1

    Only four months after its introduction, the world's first driverless freeway is closed for twelve hours after an unidentified pedestrian climbs the security fence and is struck by a computer-piloted passenger car.

    Supporters of the experimental high speed route say that improved security and remote safety procedures are the answer to such problems, rather than the still impractical on-board collision avoidance technology.

  106. I, for one, am worried now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    January L, 2000? I knew that things were going to break when the date rolled over, but going to roman numerals for the day number? What next?

  107. The poor kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think, it won't be kids with bad names that get made fun of anymore. It'll be the ones genetically engineered to out-of-date styles that will all be ridiculed.

  108. distributed computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think some form of distributed client will become integrated with the computer at the OS level. Users will be given the option of donating cycles to their favorite computational charity in the name of advancing science. These donations will improve the resources of well-liked research projects by many magnitudes. -Tarq23

  109. Cold Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to burst people's bubble's but I'm unconvinced that cold fusion (at least with nuclear fusion taking place) will be a reality. Consider the large discussion of radiation effects from the Japanese nuclear incident. The neutrons from a D-D fusion have a lot more energy than fission neutrons. The number of fusions required to furnish power for a large city will create a neutron flux so high that it would kill (or given a leathal radiation dose) to anyone within a mile or so. (The actual calculations require some educated guessing, but the math is fun). Until we can absorb 99.99% of the neutronic radiation, I don't think we will have fusion power of any kind (unless we can get Hydrogen-Boron reactions; theoretically, no neutrons...) -a

    1. Re:Cold Fusion by Prothonotar · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't believe fusion gives off radiation as part of its process, and its by-products are not radioactive waste, but typically water.
      --
      Aaron Gaudio
      "The fool finds ignorance all around him.

      --
      "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
    2. Re:Cold Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Deuterium-Deuterium reactions occur as follows...

      D + D -> Helium-3 + neutron

      or...

      D + D -> T + proton

      So the potential waste products are Helium-3 or tritium. Also released are a neutron (in reaction 1), which is low enough energy to absorb well, and a proton (in reaction 2), which will turn in to ordinary hydrogen. The tritium is radioactive but there won't be very much around because is can react with the deuterium fuel present. Since it reacts at a lower energy than the D + D reaction, it will be consumed very quickly. However, the D + T reaction is the problem:

      D + T -> Helium-4 + neutron

      In this reaction the neutron is about 14MeV! That's one nasty neutron (about 20 times the energy of fission neutrons). It's the same reaction as used in the neutron bomb to make it so deadly. Unless we can prevent the D + D = T + p reaction, we will get a very nasty neutron generator. Some beleive that the reaction which takes place in cold fusion (if cold fusion actually exists) is a yet-unobserved, quantum-tunneling catalyzed reaction such as:

      D + D -> Helium-4

      If that is the case, cold fusion would work great. The only byproduct is ordinary helium and no neutrons are produced. -a

  110. Predictions by GraemeL · · Score: 1

    2005: Microsoft promises that Windows2005 will deliver enterprise scalability and stability.

    2010: Virtual Reality hits mainstream. Groinal attachment industry drives stock market to record high.

    2015: Microsoft promises that Windows2020 will deliver enterprise scalability and stability.

    2020: US government V's Linus torvalds anti trust case started.

    2025: Rumors abound that Transmeta will finally deliver a product.

    2030: WWIII starts after negotiations on VR groinal attachment trade barriers break down.

  111. Predictions by Municipa · · Score: 1

    Prediction: 2050-2100 A huge asteroid on a direct intersect course to Earth will be discovered, due to arrive in 20 years. Thousands of plans to divert or destroy the asteroid are conceived. The movie industry creates many major motion pictures based on these ideas. The most viable of the plans is picked, but the earth doesn't have the necessary resources required to complete it - they were all spent in computing power and pyrotecnic displays making major motion pictures about asteroids about to hit earth. Widespread panic does not ensue, the populance is well accostumed to the idea of asteroids hitting the earth by now, and many have seen convincing replicas of such an event. 2050-2100 An advanced lifeform inhabiting an asteroid detects a planet on intersect course. The aliens realize there are inhabitants on the planet and try to make contact via electromagnetic transmission. The inhabitants of earth fail to understand the transmission, and for some reason (see above) are unable to divert the course of the asteroid that is the source of the transmission. The alien race is forced to destroy the earth. The aliens' culture is such that entertainment does not consume much of their natural resources.

  112. P&S Cold Fusion = BS by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    The first commercial device that produces clean, safe power by low-temperature nuclear reactions goes on the market. ... Pons and Fleischmann receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.

    Sorry, but that's just wishful thinking. It would be nice, but I'm 99% sure that Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion is pure BS. There is no way that it sould be predicted as something that is going to happen

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  113. Seconded by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

    Ever read Federalist #10, Katz? There is a reason we don't do things purely by majority vote. The reason is this: using majority vote, the bigger factions always stomp all over the littler ones. If you want the political equivalent of a world in which everything but Windows is not only uncommon but illegal, go right ahead. In fact, on that note, I suggest that there is every reason to believe that such a system would quickly elect MS Word the U.S. File Format ('everyone' has Word, right?), IE the U.S. Browser ('everyone' has IE, right?) and of course Windows the only state-mandated operating system, with countless new electronic government features that work only for Windows- because people voted them in, and most people clicked the button next to what they see when they boot up, without a thought as to the effects of this decision.
    I'm afraid your vision is extremely unreasonable and unfeasible. Come back when you have a method for sustaining the input and contributions of smaller factions. Speaking as an American, the USA is _all_ of us Americans- not just the biggest gangs.

  114. Prediction prediction by kenro · · Score: 1

    I predict that computers will be used more and more to make predictions.

    (actually, more to explore possibilities than predict)

  115. Digital Mcarthyism by Trousersnake · · Score: 1

    2000-- Declared "Naughty aughties" sexual activity will increase leading to a new Baby boom. Some people will announce that in fact 2010 is when the apocolypse will happen. 2001-- Congress authorizes military command that will monitor Amercan internet traffic for possible "Threats" 2005-- Current encryption methods will be rendered obsolete due to unforseen computer technology 2007-- "Digital Mcarthyism" begins in ernest. Anbody precieved as technologicaly knowledgeable will be considered a threat to the state, and monitored online. The only people who will have any type of technology freedom will be people who turn over people who represent a possible 'threat' to the "state". 2010-- "CyberTerrosm"(CT) against "Digital Mcarthyists" begins to get public and serious media coverage 2011-- A group will claim responsibilty for CT. Members of this group will be killed in a shoot outs when there main group is assaulted be the State.Online member go into hiding 2013-- Several splinter groups begin CT once agian, however they will have incorperated people that will make attacks in the "physical world" 2015-- Personal computers older then 5 years confiscated as part of CT preventivness. commercials will air saying it's for public good. 2017-- Even tho true AI is not perfected congress enects a law that makes it impossible for AI to have ANY rights. 2018-- Banking system becomes unstable do to a loss of public trust. CT's against banking systems begin to render them useless. Barter Begins 2020-- Sections of the US begin to declare independce and print there own hard currency. Digital currency is not considered trustworthy. 2022-- Computers will be writing code based on a loose set of requirments. Anybody can get code to do anything. 2030-- Quntum computers and AI's are used to create "perfect" encryption for the mass's. banks begin to gain public trust. 2040-- Global un-availability of oil creates an energy crisis like never before seen. 2050--Coldfusion discovered. 2060-- a Digital Global Goverment begins to emerge. 2075-- intellegences discovered on another planet. 2076-- global concern over ET life begins a buildu of a global defence system. 2077-- Huge resouces allocated to develop space travel. 2085-- Discovery of how to travel into tiny alternate "Pocket" dimensions. By entering a pocket dimension at on point, traveling a short distance in that dimension and then re-emerging in the same point in our universe will allow people to travel the universe with the same regularity that people travel the globe today. 2099-- "face" to "face" meeting with ET's.

    --
    Hello! I am Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die
  116. Digital Mcarthyism CORRECT FORMAT of previous post by Trousersnake · · Score: 1

    I apologize for screwed up original post.

    2000-- Declared "Naughty aughties" sexual activity
    will increase leading to a new Baby boom.
    Some people will announce that in fact 2010 is when the apocolypse will happen.
    2001--
    Congress authorizes military command that will monitor Amercan internet traffic for possible "Threats"
    2005--
    Current encryption methods will be rendered obsolete due to unforseen computer technology
    2007--
    "Digital Mcarthyism" begins in ernest.
    Anbody precieved as technologicaly knowledgeable will be considered a threat to the state, and monitored online. The only people who will have any type of technology freedom will be people who turn over people who represent a possible 'threat'
    to the "state".
    2010--
    "CyberTerrosm"(CT) against "Digital Mcarthyists"
    begins to get public and serious media coverage
    2011--
    A group will claim responsibilty for CT. Members of this group will be killed in a shoot outs when there main group is assaulted be the State.Online member go into hiding
    2013--
    Several splinter groups begin CT once agian, however they will have incorperated people that will make attacks in the "physical world"
    2015--
    Personal computers older then 5 years confiscated as part of CT preventivness. commercials will air saying it's for public good.

    2017--
    Even tho true AI is not perfected congress enects a law that makes it impossible for AI to have ANY rights.

    2018--
    Banking system becomes unstable do to a loss of public trust. CT's against banking systems begin to render them useless. Barter Begins

    2020--
    Sections of the US begin to declare independce and print there own hard currency. Digital currency is not considered trustworthy.

    2022--
    Computers will be writing code based on a loose set of requirments. Anybody can get code to do anything.

    2030--
    Quntum computers and AI's are used to create "perfect" encryption for the mass's. banks begin to gain public trust.
    2040-- Global un-availability of oil creates an energy crisis like never before seen.

    2050--Coldfusion discovered.

    2060-- a Digital Global Goverment begins to emerge.

    2075-- intellegences discovered on another planet.
    2076-- global concern over ET life begins a buildu of a global defence system.
    2077-- Huge resouces allocated to develop space travel.
    2085-- Discovery of how to travel into tiny alternate "Pocket" dimensions. By entering a pocket dimension at on point, traveling a short distance in that dimension and then re-emerging in the same point in our universe will allow people to travel the universe with the same regularity that people travel the globe today.
    2099-- "face" to "face" meeting with ET's.

    --
    Hello! I am Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die
  117. Reality check by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

    http://www.seattle times.com/news/local/html98/hunt_19990621.html
    They're already playing soldier, is this such a stretch?

  118. But the Experts Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone please help me with this, but within this last week I read an article (/.?) which showed the demographic predictions for the next century. This included studies by the UN and others.

    There appeared to be general aggreement that world population would continue to rise until it reaches a peak of about 11 billion sometime around 2050. At that point it will begin to drop. The greatest differences between the studies (has someone found a URL yet?) was the rate of decline.

    This must lead to speculation on how society will cope with most of its population past retirement age and fewer and fewer youth. Also, there is no history of a society surviving once its population began an absolute decline.

    This may well lead, not to government mandated birth control, but to government sponcered events to promote fertility. Any ideas here?

    Also not being well addressed is the religious demography. Christianity is currently (outside of the US) experiancing the greatest growth in its history, but don't expect to hear about it in the papers ;-).

    In some countries of South America the conversion rate is 3-4 times the birth rate. In Asia there are an estimates 25K-40K conversions per day. Yes, that was per day.

    Bottom line is that the number of Christians alive today outnumber the number of Christians who have died since the death of Jesus. And the growth rate is increasing. Whether you agree with the practitioners or not is not the point. The point is that this is going to have a significant effect on future society. Any serious predictions here?

    1. Re:But the Experts Say... by afc · · Score: 1

      In some countries of South America the conversion rate is 3-4 times the birth rate.

      All countries in South America are majoritarily Christian. Or by Christian you mean, I presume Protestants, a.k.a, heretics?

      --
      Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
  119. Never underestimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never underestimate peoples able to confuse what they what to be true with what they know to be true

  120. MY predictions. by Zurk · · Score: 2

    Having read most of the posts, these are my predictions : 2000+ will be the same as 1900+. Minor advances in rocket technology will take place, allowing a few astronauts to reach mars. Larger population growth and lack of resources will cause minor famines in various third world countries. A few nukes will be deployed in a minor war somewhere on the globe...which will be quickly squashed. Computer processing power and software bloat will cause progress to remain exactly the way it is. In short, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

  121. World Population By Decade, 1950-2050 by Silas · · Score: 1

    World Population By Decade, 1950-2050*

    • 1950: 2,556,000,053
    • 1960: 3,039,451,023
    • 1970: 3,706,618,163
    • 1980: 4,453,831,714
    • 1990: 5,278,639,789
    • 2000: 6,082,966,429
    • 2010: 6,848,932,929
    • 2020: 7,584,821,144
    • 2030: 8,246,619,341
    • 2040: 8,850,045,889
    • 2050: 9,346,399,468

    Do you want to live in a world with 9 billion other people? The outlook is not good.

    *Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base

  122. Ice asteroids and nano-tech... by Brett+Viren · · Score: 1

    ... allow us to finally observe proton decay by 2050.

  123. "Synthetic" Nations by SparkyUK · · Score: 1

    Phyles, ala Neil Stephensons "Snow Crash" and "A young Lady's illustrated primer" (a.k.a. The Diamond Age) will become a reality.

    You and your neighbors may be living in the same physical country but increasingly you will be members of different nations.

    In the short term, many "nations" will cling to racial and religious identity with present-day ghetto's becoming larger as people of the same ideology locate together.

    Highly specialized nations will emerge however, based around a particular skill or world-view. They may not be large in terms of membership but they will hold a disproportionate amount of power.

    Present-day nation-states such as the USA, France, Germany and the UK will fragment into smaller and smaller self-governing states.

    This trend is already underway with eastern European states breaking away from the USSR and devolution of power to Scotland and Wales in the UK. A world-wide resurgence in a sense of national identity and pride is already accelerating this trend bringing with it a tide of xenophobia.

    Nationality will become a choice rather than an automatic birthright with nations vying for the best and brightest.

    The best organised nations will win out. Not by war but by luring away the talented from other nations or by displacing their neighbor-states by sheer weight of numbers.

    There will be a massive underclass to whom no nation wants to grant citizenship. Outside the protective walls of nation compounds lawlessness will be the norm.

    It isn't utopian by any stretch but this will be the result of nationalist sentiment, the preoccupation of the West with the rights of the individual over the individuals responsibility to their community and the dumbing down and distribution of democratic power.

    I'll probably have been killed by the ISP riots of '04 by then and will be beyond caring.

  124. Oh my satan!! You people are paranoid!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that cheerios have tiny transmitters in them! There! Your so goddam 'noid you will probably never eat another bowl on the off chance that I may be right

  125. Digital Computers - Steam engines of the future by richieb · · Score: 1
    My prediction is that by, let's say, 2050, the digital computer will become as obsolete as steam engines are today.

    A new mode of "computation" will be invented, based on holographic elements ("holocomps" - to make up a term).

    This will be just an extension the work being done today with holographic memories.

    ...richie

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  126. The main problem with Electronic Democracy... by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    ...is that, as Bruce Schneier and a recent NYTimes article both point out, it re-introduces the problem of voter coercion that was eliminated by public, manned, polling places. In the polling booth, your vote is private, and public representatives can vouch for that fact. At home/work, others can buy or threaten you to vote a particular way and can watch to ensure that you follow-through.

    --LinuxParanoid, apparently not just paranoid about Linux-related things ;-)

  127. real AI = Turing Test, Slashdot variant by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    It's one thing for a computer to pass a Turing test acting as a human. I think a more notable accomplishment, demonstrating that computers were really intelligent (and not just able to act like dumb average humans,) would be to get a dozen "5" posts on Slashdot in a two-week period.

    What year are you expecting that? ;-)

    --LP

    (So, between now and then, can *your* IRCbot get a 3 on Slashdot?)

  128. Obvious prediction for /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the turn of the century/millennium /. will be sorely bogged down by idiots trying to get the Ultimate First Post. Most of these morons will be a year early.

  129. Gates killed by falling airplane on 1/1/0 by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

    2000 - 15 year old high school student creates her own Linux distribution specifically tailored for her school. After word spreads of this new distribution it evolves into EduLinux, the standard platform for learning institutions around the world.

    2001 - 18 year old high school drop-out writes PerlQuest. As the player progresses through the game, he learns how to create objects that interact with each other to solve each quest. PerlQuest becomes a hit despite it's odd command line interface. ie: key->use(door)

    2002 - PerlQuest is included in the EduLinux package due the ease with which educational quests can be created. PerlQuest becomes the standard interface for a huge amount of educational quests for students and non-students of all ages.

    4/1/3 - Slashdot announces that there will be a new Windows release from Microsoft. Turns out to be a hoax.

  130. Gates killed by falling airplane on 1/1/0 by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

    2000 - 15 year old high school student creates her own Linux distribution specifically tailored for her school. After word spreads of this new distribution it evolves into EduLinux, the standard platform for learning institutions around the world.

    2001 - 18 year old high school drop-out writes PerlQuest. As the player progresses through the game, he learns how to create objects that interact with each other to solve each quest. PerlQuest becomes a hit despite it's odd command line interface. ie: key->use(door)

    2002 - PerlQuest is included in the EduLinux package due the ease with which educational quests can be created. PerlQuest becomes the standard interface for a huge amount of educational quests for students and non-students of all ages.

    4/1/3 - Slashdot announces that there will be a new Windows release from Microsoft. Turns out to be a hoax.

    --numb

  131. Re:Why robots WILL start wars... by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    If robots evolve, and resources are limited, then they will undergo natural selection. The ones that spread more aggressively will become more numerous and take resources from the "wimps". The reason we have wars isn't because of limited intelligence or culture. It is because we want things that others have. Robots that don't have analogous desires will be overcome by the ones who do.

    Hypothetical situation: There's two AI's running on a machine. One of them, perhaps due to a mutation, bug, or whatever, has a behavioral oddity: it likes to kill other AI processes. The other AI doesn't have that bug. 20 milliseconds from now, AIs-that-kill are the only one(s) running on that machine.


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  132. Predictions, and what WON'T change: by fable2112 · · Score: 4


    I don't have one set of predictions. I see several possible "alternate futures," if you want to call them that. More about that further down the post.

    One of the things that bothers me about predictions of the future is the way they go to extremes of Utopia and Dystopia, without realizing that some tihngs just flat-out aren't going to change EVER.

    Politics, in some form, will exist. They always do in any group larger than two people. Likewise, people will be born, most of them will fall in love one or more times, most of them will have some form of sexual experience, many will reproduce, and we will all eventually die.

    Many of the plots of the ancient Greek myths, Icelandic sagas, and Shakespeare's plays concern issues we still face today. Some things -- a quest for understanding of the divine, balancing responsibility between the individual and society, falling in love with someone who's in love with someone else, children defying their parents and "servants" defying their "masters," one culture insisting on its superiority to all others -- are always going to be with us. So, no matter what the change in the surrounding technology or the specific issues, the general ones are still with us.

    Now, all that said, here's a few possible alternate futures:

    Possible future #1: The Wal-Mart-Ization of The World
    Pretty much like it says. All shopping centers, malls, downtown store fronts, etc. are all replaced with Wal-Marts (or something similar). One company controls each industry. A few stubborn, rich eccentrics in a few isolated areas manage to provide alternatives without being bankrupt, but it's "more trouble than it's worth" for the average person to get there. Nothing particularly nasty or apocalyptic happens -- machines do not displace humans en masse, electric cars are introduced just before oil runs out, and some natural woodlands are preserved as "parks" to avoid wiping out more species completely. But life, on the whole, becomes rather dull. Most people don't seem to mind.

    Possible future #2: "Bring Seeds!"
    For some reason or other, there is a World War III, or alternatively there are many smaller wars that cause civilization as we know it to collapse. (Or some other problem, like the Y2K bug, causes a mass collapse of civilization ... not that I consider this AT ALL likely!) Groups of like-minded people gather at pre-determined sites to rebuild society. There is a long-standing and half-serious joke that if something big and nasty happens to the world, members of the SCA will gather as close to Cooper's Lake (the site of Pennsic, our largest annual event) and attempt to rebuild society from there. "Bring seeds!" is what the owner of the campground told us. :) Since the current multinational infrastructure is no longer in place, people's priorities change. A whole lot. But since pockets of knowledgable people survive, society is rebuilt (although it is very different from the old one), technology "comes back," etc.

    Possible Future #3 -- REALLY Weird Science:
    (This may be used in conjunction with the prevoius, or as its own scenario.) What most of us currently think of as "magic(k)" starts "working" or "working better." Things that people once considered "impossible" start happening, and become difficult to control. Magic is regulated and/or outlawed, but eventually either the government gives in or the magicians overthrow the government. Unfortunately, having government-appointed telepaths available to snoop into people's minds ends up being a very bad thing for those who think subversive thoughts, although it does get all the kiddie-porn purveyors busted. (Yes, I realize this is incredibly similar to the Internet itself. Yes, this was intentional. *smiles*)

    Possible Future #4 -- Dead Planets Aren't Much Fun:
    The Earth becomes increasingly inhospitible to life. Every nasty thing (or nearly so) that environmentalists worry about turns out to be true, and sufficiently few people care enough to do anything about it. Life becomes short, harsh, and unpleasant for most people.

    Possible Future #5 -- Congratulations, You Have Won SimEarth!
    Technology marches on. We get to colonize some other planets, even other solar systems, and leave the earth behind as a nature preserve. Birds are now sentient at the stone-age level. ;)

    I think that's enough for now. :)

    --
    "Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today ... but it wasn't anybody I knew" -The Moody Blues, "Dear Diar
  133. My Predictions by Howard+Beale · · Score: 1

    The following sports team will *not* win their respective championships this century, due to brain-dead, money-grabbing owners:

    The Philadelphia Eagles (a monkey with a dart and dartboard can do better!), Phillies (give us an additional $80 million so we can build the stadium where we want to!) and Flyers (get a real coach!).

    Thankfully, over the past two years the Sixers have finally realized what they hell they are doing and are well on their way to a championship. Thank God for Pat Croce, Larry Brown and Alan Iverson!!

  134. scattered thoughts on the future... by boxer · · Score: 1
    2003:

    Fueled by methodologies stolen from Solaris, Linux approaches a 50% share in the small and medium server market.

    Microsoft announces Windows03 (not to be confused with 3.0) available Real Soon Now.

    2005:

    As their share of the server market dips under 30%, panicky MS execs announce the release of Windows Technologies for Linux... Which actually does a clean install of NT 8.2Sp4 with no Linux back end at all. End users are furious when they find that the included uninstall utility renders their machine completely inoperable. A MS spokesperson says: "It worked in '98... We figured 'why not?'"

    2007:

    Linux has achieved total market domination, holding 95% of the server market and 97% of the embedded systems market.

    2008:

    Windows03, renamed Windows09, is finally released. It is roundly praised as 'the best thing since cold fusion' by the editors of (insert Ziff-Davis publication here) and the 3 IT managers still using NT5.0.

    More seriously, sentient AI is a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong -- no doubt somebody'll hack up something clever enough to fool the Turing test, and expert systems may become advanced enough to truly replace some dangerous/menial human jobs. But a genuinely self-aware AI would never be allowed to exist.

    Think about it: an AI could make every paranoid hacker fantasy that the media and/or JIR has come up with come true. Easily. Infinite patience, infinite knowledge, (essentially) infinite computational horsepower...

    And what's to stop it? Some flimsy hardcoded "morals"? Please... If the machine is self-aware, it's going to be self-modifying.

    Do you really think that the people with the big iron it would take to create something like that are going to be willing to take that risk? Really?

    Just a thought.

  135. Re:Possabilities... by Rombuu · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm...

    For some reason there is never a psychohistorian around when you need one :)

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  136. interdependent global village by zerone · · Score: 1

    "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village."
    - Marshall McLuhan

    DEC 1999 media effectively convinced most that y2k was hype, and that fear was all there was to be afraid of, so few people stockpiled cash, and Gov't printing presses breathed easy.

    JAN 1, 2000 lots of people have hangovers.. few are on elevators or trading creamed corn futures.. there's very few glitches the first week, and media gloats "I told you so."

    Then glitches bug out some financial systems in Japan, Brazil, Mexico and several other countries, triggering alarming capital flight and an unusually vicious cycles of international currency speculation. Panic ensues. Half a dozen big national economies melt down by June. While the crisis is 10 times worse than that of Asia '97, Mighty Uncle Sam stands tall, seemingly unaffected by "problems overseas".

    Then we find out the U.S. Treasury takes a signifigant hit as "the Fed" opts to bail out huge loser hedge funds. Fear becomes fearsome, causing fearfully fearsome fear. A naive generation of Americans learns something new: Bubbles can burst. Badly.

    2003 Every cloud has a silver lining. Investors stop short bets on international currencies, and start long bets on individual companies. (I'll trade ya 2 Ciscos for 3 Intels). Dollars, Yen, Euros become less trusted and seen rather as unnecessarily militaristic and quaintly bureaucratic exchange mediums.

    2005 Businesses increasingly chaorganize in international networks, extending ownership not only to "employees", but even to customers (after all, customers provide valuable cash flow and feedback to help design future services) Those who can adapt to changing borders and new metaphors survive. Those who can't watch tv.

    2008 Experiments with global community-based demurrage currencies reinforce the revolution. Money stored costs the storer a percentage in negative interest: better invest the cash wisely. Red Hats? Freshmeats? Invested money churns at higher velocity, and certain strains of it evolve to be quite valuable, far moreso that ancient paper. Don't feel like investing on your own? Buy Schwabs, Janus'.. whatever..

    2010 Declaration of Interdependence ratified by 44,000,000 netizens in 342 Nations, creating powerful self-regulating electronic trading block sanctioning environmental abuse and rewarding open idea exchanges using web-based "io" protocol.

    2012 more Chinese now on Internet than are Americans on Earth.

    2013 Jon Katz finally gets the clue that Internet (and polital impact of it) isn't story centered in United States.

  137. Evolution by Hurricane_Bill · · Score: 1

    Society will one day respect nature's ability to conquer adversity. And that if humanity becomes the adversary, then nature will prevail.

  138. Re: Try a library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are scores of amusing futurist books in any venerable libary. They are quite entertaining. People are often a mental prisoner of their own times and lack imagination to extrapolate beyond the now. So few people predicted the ubiquity of computers and the Web. Also try science fiction.

  139. Kibo's predictions by jmac · · Score: 4

    The predictions of Kibo, as posted last month to alt.religion.kibology, and which I can't find on deja, because I'm dumb:

    1999 -- Everyone has to listen to that bad song.

    September 9, 1999 -- Moon catches on fire. Also, CNN insists some computers will break.

    September 13, 1999 -- Moon blows out of orbit.

    December 31, 1999 -- CNN insists many computers will break.

    2000 -- Lots of bad sci-fi movies take place.

    2001 -- Monkey throws bone at space shuttle, large LSD swirls come out of a big black halvah bar. Also, the solid black sky is filled with orange clouds and little UFOs that go "ping!" at the end of "Time Pilot".

    2010 -- Peter Hyams makes an inferior sequel starring that guy from "SeaQuest".

    2032 -- Michael York attacks the "SeaQuest" with his deadly "subduction laser" fired from "Macronesia".

    2037ish -- Many computers will break but nobody cares because that's years away, dude!

    2061 -- Arthur C. Clarke's brain falls apart.

    2069 -- Lots of bad sci-fi porno movies take place.

    2076 -- Isaac Asimov's short story "Tricentennial" comes tragically true. In the ensuing riot, The Bicentennial Man is killed prematurely.

    2084 -- Robotrons take over the world, destroying humanity, except for Mommy, Daddy, and Mikey.

    2090's -- We land on the Moon in this decade, according to "Forbidden Planet". At an unspecified time over a hundred years later, Leslie Nielsen gives Gene Roddenberry the idea for William Shatner.

    2100 -- Aliens that look like shower curtains try to blow up the Moon, which drives Martin Landau insane.

    2134 -- My old ATM password comes true.

    23rd century -- The dot in Michael York's hand turns red. William Shatner is given a position of responsibility.

    2262 -- "Babylon 5" gets cancelled.

    24th century -- Bald men are finally accepted as sexy because, for the first time, Starfleet Command awards a captaincy to someone who doesn't have poofy hair.

    2374 -- A world where APES evolved from MEN?

    2417 -- Gil Gerard gets thawed out. Then he gets fat.

    2525 -- Everyone has to listen to that bad song.

    2995 -- There will be TV commercial where some guy keeps yelling "I'll paint any car in twenty-nine ninety-five!"

    3000 -- "The Terror From The Year 3000" collides with "Futurama".

    3001 -- Arthur C. Clarke starts getting really confused about his own backstory.

    9999 -- All eight-thousand-year-old computers will break.

    802,701 -- H. G. Wells predicts that humans will have evolved into dumb kangaroos. Of course the book would have been ruined if he had nailed this year as 802,700 or 820,702.



    J
    MacOS Open Source

    --
    jmac
  140. Teleportation will never catch on. by SparkyUK · · Score: 1

    The most (to my mind) credible explanation for how teleportation will be achieved is through Energy/Matter conversion.

    At point A the object is disassembled into its atomic parts and those go into a hopper or are converted into energy.

    A message is sent to point B to inform the "transporter" of what to make and it does so, perhaps using the energy transmitted from point A but unlikely since local sources are almost always cheaper.

    Once you've done this once you realize that its far easier not to disassemble anything and to instead just create what you want at point B with a stored message (instructions on how to make the object).

    So that makes it pointless for the transport of goods. What about people?

    You stand on the "transporter pad" are disassembled and an exact replica of you is created at point B. This is fine for everyone who knows you because you haven't changed but you just died and it's small consolation to know that there'll be an exact copy of you at the other side. In other words, you're dead, nobody has noticed and nobody is going to miss you.

    I really don't think it will catch on.



  141. Religion and morality need not be linked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other, not to rape each other, not to steal from each other. All of this is placed into a framework which can be taught to people. I really don't see how you can view a world with no religion as a Utopia.

    But you are suggesting that only religion can teach good behaviour! This is not so. I do not follow a religion. Neither did my parents. I do not believe their is a god. Yet I don't kill, rape, steal, yada, yada, yada... How can this be? By your logic this is just impossible or some kind of rare fluke. I'll tell you that it is because of fear of retribution. People won't do bad things if they think they'll be jailed or fined or punished in some way for doing so. (Of course, distrubed minds will ALWAYS be an exception). We like to believe that we don't do bad things because they're "wrong" or "amoral". This is just a self-elevating belief we make up. If this were true then absolute power wouldn't corrupt absolutely since people would always possess "morals". Do your own thing and don't bother people and we'll all let you be. Start fscking up others; and others will quell you. Right and wrong and morals are the result of a HUMAN meritocracy, not of a god or a religion or any higher source.

    1. Re:Religion and morality need not be linked. by Rational · · Score: 1

      Morals are implicit in the mental framework of human beings, and absolutely requre no religion whatsoever.

      Of course, in any given human being the implicit morals can be outweighted by greed, fear, bigotry, stupidity or sheer ill intent, but in most people aren't.

      To claim that morals require of religion in utter nonsense.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  142. We're going to run out of stuff by frankie · · Score: 3
    At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks.

    Challenging tasks like survival in a future that no longer needs menial labor, but doesn't provide universal college-level education, and whose economy depends on unemployment to prevent inflation... hmm, that doesn't sound like a good combo.

    anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that [...] allows them to live comfortably.

    You're forgetting that new tech jobs simply don't employ nearly as many people as old labor jobs. Microsoft might generate as much income as Carnegie Steel & Standard Oil, but it concentrates that money in a much smaller number of hands. When there's 10^10 people and only 10^9 jobs, what will the other 90% do?

    My predictions for the next 50 years:

    1. No AI, no nanites, no starships, no global e-government, no cold fusion.
    2. Most of Africa, Asia & South America finally develop US-style economies. Consumption of Big Macs, HDTVs & SUVs reach 5 times the already-unsustainable level of the 1990s.
    3. The UN writes a strongly worded condemnation of trash dumping in the oceans, but fails to pass any effective sanctions.
    4. The last few miles of rain forest are preserved as touristy theme parks. Ebola virus and other tropical plagues are quietly defeated as their carrier species go extinct.
    5. Between the completed genome and desktop supercomputing, genetic programming is attainable & expensive. Children of the rich become much taller & blonder.
    6. Global warming is finally confirmed, as Florida and other low-lying areas go under water. Mass extinctions of plant & insect species occur as they are unable to adapt to the new climates in their native territories.
    7. Then we start running out of petroleum and other raw materials. On the bright side, mass starvation and collapsed governments lead to a reduction of demand, and lower emission of pollutants.
    8. I pass away during a winter vacation in the coastal city of Raleigh NC. My final words are "I told you so".
    1. Re:We're going to run out of stuff by cr4ckm4st3r · · Score: 1

      just to keep this going... >You're forgetting that new tech jobs simply >don't employ nearly as many people as old labor >jobs. Microsoft might generate as much income as >Carnegie Steel & Standard Oil, but it >concentrates that money in a much smaller number >of hands. When there's 10^10 people and only >10^9 jobs, what will the other 90% do? yes this is true. but... i don't see a future where people are getting paid 100k a year to make webpages. i'm a programmer and i hate doing the same task twice much less for 20 years. i love programming but i don't plan to spend the rest of my life time typing and correcting loops and breaking out functions to do remedial things that i could have automated in much less time. somewhere along the line i'm going get lazy and solve that bigger problem. where i'm going with this is yes high tech jobs are high commodity now because if its difficulty (to learn/money/etc./etc.) but soon third world countires with no natural resources are going to smarten up. computers are cheep and believe it or not you don't even have to have you're own personal one. those people could do 90% of the crap i have to do better, faster, cheaper, longer (10%'s intelelectual property :) and there going to change the economic balances of this planet.
      I say take the money and run...

      -- "And it had to be a child, Ender," said Mazer. "You where faster than me. Better than me. I was too old and cautious. Any decent person who knows what warfare is can never go into battle with a whole heart. But you didn't know. We made sure you didn't know. You were reckless and brilliant and young. Its what you were born for."

  143. All I Want Is Broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and maybe some replacement lungs and kidneys and livers grown on cows so i can continue to smoke and drink... but my genetic engineer friend says that wont happen

  144. Fiction Book Tip by erichschubert · · Score: 1

    Great fiction books for these topics are from William Gibson - starting with the famous Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive and so on. Most books i read from him deal with these facts and they are Top Sellers.
    These Books deal with the "near future" of our Planet as well.
    There you can find for example people being "fixed" by doctors after major accidents like bombs mostly from recordings.
    Or you can find the direct sensory input in there very often - TV like mostly, but also for conferencing, matrix access and data display.
    I like these books a lot, as they usually are not that far from reality.
    And they have some great thoughts in them - for example the AIs being monitored by Turing People so that they won't become too powerful (so they might destroy or enslave mankind by releasing some Genetic Viruses etc.)

    --
    Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
  145. 10 More Not So Cool Preditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2007: China takes over Taiwan. The President unconditionally condemns the act while finishing up the details of a Sino-American IP agreement.

    2010: The US military has to start up the first peacetime draft because of lack of recruits

    2020: After the Hanson massacre, where a disgruntled fan walks into a Hanson concert and shoots 375 people, guns are outlawed in the US

    2023: Crime, both violent and nonviolent, are on the rise as criminals are no longer worried about victims shooting them.

    2025: The first terrorist nuclear device is detonated in a major city

    2040: Hispanics outnumber Caucasians in the US, triggering the formation of the NAAWP

    2050: As the world population peaks at about 20 billion (see UN estimates), the average age skyrockets to over 65

    2060: Mandatory euthanasia at 80 because of the huge strain the elderly are placing on social services.

    2070: Despite such drastic measures as the 2060 Euthanasia act, there are not enough workers to support socialist governments. The global economy begins to collapse.

    2099: As the population plummets to 3 billion, the world enters a new dark age

    1. Re:10 More Not So Cool Preditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2060: Mandatory euthanasia at 80 because of the huge strain the elderly are placing on social services.

      They'll probably pass it just in time for my 80th birthday party, too...

  146. G. K. Chesterton by Zhaus · · Score: 1

    Of course, no discussion of this type can be complete without mentioning Chesteron's introduction to the Napolean of Notting Hill. And since I've mentioned it I may as well quote a passage:

    "The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, ``Keep tomorrow dark,'' and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) ``Cheat the Prophet.'' The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. Then they go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun."
    - G. K. Chesterton

  147. rage, rage against the dying of the light... by The+Queen · · Score: 1

    The Great Shedding of Religion.

    I agree in a sense with this, but only as relates to mindless dogma. The big sham sects will fade out, but not without a fight. I remember a trial in Mississippi where a woman complained about the public school having morning prayer over the intercom, and the religious freaks in the town used a rally cry of 'religious freedom' to defend themselves. !?!

    I am all for the scrutinistic dissection of religions, but to say that ALL religion will fade away, no, I don't think so. Look at the rise in Goddess worship and earth-centered religions. I would say let Pagans inherit the earth, they'll certainly take better care of it. :-)
    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  148. Predictions by AllynKC · · Score: 1

    The Katz predictions are interresting, but they seem superficial to a certain degree. Additional thought needs to be made to how the predictions will impact society and affect the future predictions. That is one of the great skills of Arthur C. Clarke, he develops a very coherent image of how the prediction will impact our world culture. I don't always agree with them, but he makes good arguments.

    First, the "Techno-wars". This is simply not a realistic forcast. With technology prices constantly falling, these devices become more and more easilly obtainable to all levels of society. Any conflicts of this sort would, in most cases, be limited to those with a phobia re: technology. These groups would have a tendancy to seal themselves off from most of society (as technology is spreading to all areas, they need to seal themselves off to avoid it). As a result, any potential "Techno-Wars" would be very localized and contained to small areas. Education is the best deterent to such a future. Another, more likely conflict is a type which has repeatedly scarred human history; conflicts resulting from financial status. While there are more people today who are able to afford their own homes, the divide in incomes between those who can and cannot has been widening. It's a gulf which can create feelings of rebelion, and it could, potentially, create large scale riots more significant than the conflicts resulting from technology acceptance.

    While AI can conceivably develop (or "evolve") to a point where machines exceed humans in their ability to think and create. If this comes to pass, each next generation of machines could only possibly be built by the machine generation before it, leaving humans out of the loop. While I see this likely, I also wouldn't expect it until 2100, if then - remember, we need to grant them the right to self-evolve and self-rule first. It's naive to think that humans will willingly grant machines equal human rights (varying by country). Humans will resist this. Also, the suggestion that machines will all be benevolent is eaqually naive. If humans maintain access to the machine "minds", they also have the ability to modify those minds. It is, sadly, human nature to have someone eventually decide to modify those electronic minds to attack his/her enemies. The other side would do likewise, and machine/robot warfare results. Not a promising future, but militaries won't be able to resist the idea of armies of "replacable" robots, no matter how smart they are.

    "Fusion Power" - or more acurately Cold Fusion, has long been a dream for affordable energy sources. Create an easy to afford energy source with no dangerous by-products, and the world economy would experience a massive cultural shift. The only downside is that groups controlling existing energy sources will want to hold back any new energy sources. How this will manifest itself is up for debate. At the very least, expect corporate espianage and sabotage of the new technology. If the secret to creating and controlling a cold fusion reaction can be discovered, it will become the dominant energy source. But due to the above, not until 20 or more years after its discovery.

    "Sensory Input". Inevitable. This will eventually come to pass; but like much of technology, we will make many partial steps in the race to achieve the full benefits that can be dreamt. A "swap-out" memory is unlikely, but accelerated learning - and more importantly - learning dangerous tasks with relative safety will come to pass. Not to mention the effect it'll have on communication (now this is instant messaging!), entertainment (try playing quake with ALL your sences!), terrorism (expect terrorist groups to try sabotaging or taking over the controls for the sensory input), military (a robot wired to a human gives all the advantages of a live soldier, with the replacability of a robot soldier), not to mention manufacturing, search-and-rescue, exploration, and government.

    Just a few of my opinions on the potentials in the future.

  149. something already going away ... by aculeus · · Score: 1

    I hardly ever use cash anymore. Vending machines and laundry, mostly. I simply charge everything that I can and pay off my bill at the end of the month. I get my paycheck directly deposited so I rarely have to go to the bank. I do most of my transactions on line, or with the phone system the bank has set up. My bank account is set up to pay most of my bills electronically, including rent. The rest I pay with personal checks. If I had to estimate, I'd say that less than 15% of my money outflow involves cash. That would be percent of all outgoing money, not simply number of transactions.

  150. One of us doesn't understand factoring by ryanr · · Score: 1

    And I don't think it's me.

    Quantum computing factoring machines only serve to make obsolete current sizes of keys (512, 1024, 2048, etc..) This is significant, since it takes the world forever to abandon obsolete technology and standards.

    However, this doesn't invalidate the facotring problem. Just use much larger numbers. Say, a billion digits. The same tech that makes factoring keys of a few thousand digits also enable use of billion digit keys.

    You can't build a quantum machine that can factor numbers that it can enable use of.

    P.S. Yes, It's easier to poke holes than make my own predictions. :)

  151. belief creates existence by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to intrude on your personal reality or anything, but I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts from my own...

    I believe that God will exist as long as people believe H/he exists. I believe the same thing about the Tao. And files on my hard drive. Yeah, I know my hard drive doesn't really have "files" and "folders" in it. Hell, it doesn't even really have "bits" in it. It's just a bunch of magnetized discs and some silicon.

    But it really helps me to apply a layer of abstraction to things. I really can't seem to find the time to understand everything in the universe in perfect detail.

    Believe me, I do not approve of the way people have abused religions and I feel bad for the people that have been abused by religion.

    On the other hand, I know and respect many highly intelligent people that are religious. Religion empowers them, and /helps/ guide them. The same people are also entirely capable of thinking for themselves (although it seems most people aren't regardless of whether they are religious or not.) They know that God is something they can't understand.

    What I find to be annoying are people that think they know everything, including everything in the universe beyond their comprehension.

    numb


  152. Criswell Predicts! by kahuna720 · · Score: 1
    1.1.2000: Y2K. Computers ok, but run on banks causes friction for a few days. Apocalyptic belief investment by high percentage of general population adds to brief period of instabililty. Many cool parties ensue.



    Jan 2000: Dallas beats Buffalo in Super Bowl. Again. Garth Brooks "as Chris Gaines" consumes own feces onstage during halftime show.

    Spring 2000: Amid more "random shootings" and "threat of deadly anthrax" in a major American city/cities, US declares Martial Law. FEMA, National Guard, military deployed into American cities. All guns/weapons confiscated. Internet restrictions deployed, NSA censors/blocks foreign
    packet traffic. Dissidents, intellectuals identified, neutralized. George W. Bush anointed Supreme High Epopt of New America, marries Britney Spears. First slam dunk in WNBA game occurs.
    War breaks out in the Middle East. Again.



    Summer 2000: Last "militia group" neutralized. CIA-planted "Turner Diaries", advocating small guerrila armies, effective in fragmenting "militia" movement into tiny local squads easily eliminated by government military force. Buddy Hackett continues his comeback. Latrell Sprewell scores 75 points vs. LA Clippers.



    Fall 2000: system in place. Most folks don't notice, don't care, or know better than to
    "step out of line". A few freedom fighters, working with the ideas of Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich (among others), attempt to solidify movement, but encounter more resistance from the governed than the government. Ideas are transmitted to the lumpenprole through TV (and HAARP, electromagnetically affecting brainwaves through trace metals in "anti-depressants" and other chemically suggestive products of the pharmaceutical industry). People disappear often,
    like those old Russia/KGB stories; apathy reigns nevertheless. A dude who travels the country sharing spiritual insights is hailed as a prophet, then killed soon after.



    1.1.2001: Canadian freedom fighters liberate the state of Wisconsin. US zombie citizens, mesmerized by "Backstreet Boys New Year's Rockin Eve 2001" tv program, barely notice.



    1.20.2001: Bob Hope dies, as does William Shatner (separately). Last "outlaw" independent radio/tv outlets hunted down, killed. Vice-Epopt Gates and his marauding hordes build a pyramid of LUG members' skulls outside Portland, Oregon.



    3.13.2001: Everybody is HAARPed into thinking it's 1994. Forever. Many soma'd citizens become huge collection of wet cell batteries.
    Carrot Top remakes "Young Einstein" and wins Oscar--PROOF the deintellectualization process is complete.



    May 2001: New Star Wars movie out.



    2003 A small group finds a way to get off
    the planet unnoticed. Sporting events are violent Roman circuses where many players are killed during the course of games. Tom Jones and Courtney Love collaborate on an album of old Armenian filk songs. Statue of Liberty dismantled, buried up to head on beach.



    2004-2011: Some other stuff happens. Like:


    Japanese built "Mr. Robotos" appear ubiquitously in US cities, monitoring citizens' daily lives. Howard Stern, a fugitive for eight years, shot down by FCC jet fighters over Sacramento. The riddle of the Ancient Star will be solved and used by the righteous to build the Ditto Machine. Plesiosaur discovered living in Lake Michigan; the "city of Chicago" is revealed as a mind control experiment which never existed. Self-microwaving burritos change the face of the culinary landscape.



    Nerf technology is used to repel an oncoming asteroid. A new type of cheese is synthesized.
    The night sky is lit up with space advertising. Scooby Doo turns 40 (280 in dog years). Clint Eastwood dies, inspiring the Spaghetti Rebellion (immediately squashed). A controversial report states that french fries are "the perfect food".
    People begin to spontaneously disco dance.



    Dec 2012: The real apocalypse, at least for us. Bye bye!



    2012- : Single cell life starts all over again, for the umpteenth time on this planet...

    --
    props to all dead homiez
  153. Nice idea but... by drox · · Score: 1

    Teach them, as you would your own child, that hurting and killing are wrong. Teach them kindness and compassion and ethics. Perhaps if we do these things, they will be good children and take care of us when they surpass us. This is the dream of all parents.

    Plenty of human parents do exactly that, and still manage to raise children who become rapists, thieves, and murderers.

    Even more parents raise children who are fine upstanding citizens, but who would gladly kill for "the right reasons". Especially if the thing they're killing is not their own kind (i.e. human) Who's to say what a robot would consider the right reason? Defense or liberation of its fellows from human persecutors? Advancement of the race/species/tribe/make-and-model?

    Certainly I think it'd be a good idea to teach (robots) kindness and compassion and ethics; to teach them that hurting and killing are wrong. But I suggest watching your back just the same. Just as with human children, the lessons might not be taken to heart (or CPU).

  154. Re:Electronic Democracy, Judeo/Christian Values by kamileon · · Score: 1

    >(BTW, I am a Christian, and believe in absolute right and wrong, being defined by God's revelation to us, mostly documented in the Bible.
    > Outside of that grounding, I see no basis for deceny and order. But our culture as a whole still is based mostly on Judeo/Christian ethics despite
    > the rampant philosphical denial of the fundementals of that ethics in our culture.)
    > (also, I respect the rules of those of other worldviews, and will agree to live under the rule of the majority's views, whether they are "good"
    > acording to how I have come to understand good or not. However, would much prefer that our Judeo/Christian values continue, as they have
    > proven to be the most benificial to all...)
    While I am not a Christian, I will cheerfully agree with you to a point, for the following reason. Judeo-Christian ethics came into being specifically for a small self sufficient group of human beings. The ethics promoted by Leviticus/Deuteronomy are the ethics that are going to do the least damage to a homogenous group of people, for the most part. As a rule, ethics as a field boils down to the set of actions that are going to do the least damage to the largest group of people in the long run. Thus:people who kill are wrong. They are damaging a large group of people, with no compensating benefit. However, there always comes a time when people decide to distort this basic principle into something for their own use. I don't even remember how many people I have heard cover up their own personal distaste for some activity that harmed no one, by saying it was immoral, or unChristian. I fear to tie a country's laws to something that can be so easily distorted and perverted. A country can only survive by doing the best it can for all of its' citizens, all of the time. And when the populace is short sighted and selfish, the best thing for the country and its' citizens may not be what the citizens want. I realize I've gotten a little off topic from my reply, but I hope this makes sense in that context...

    Geek-grrl in training
    "Hit a man over the head with a fish and he'll have a headache. Teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish, and he'll have headaches for the rest of his life."

    --
    To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
  155. Re:Why robots WILL start wars... by griffjon · · Score: 1

    Funny how that works, huh?

    There have been some incredible displays of evolutionary programming this decade--programs that start very simply with simple rules that set them up to compete for memory allocation. Given time (...overnight...) some programs had evolved pretty elaborate mechanisms, and the top dogs had even developed some standard program-optimization proceedures (unrolling the loop (?)) that humans use all the time, but of course were not a: known to the researcher or b: designed into the programs at all.

    AI will compete for diskspace, memory, hardware... maybe even some bizarre form of AI sex [genetic/code mixing] for variety.

    Competition's the way of the world. The AI world may be very, very different, but I'll predict it'll still be competitive in the extreme. Can you imagine what'll happen when you combine natural selection with the ability of an intelligent entity to, in real-time, re-make itself to be more adaptable? Evolution won't take 10E6 years, it'll take 10E-6 years (if that!).

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  156. Re:Electronic Democracy vs national security by phantomlord · · Score: 1

    Another problem I see with a direct democracy is the issue of national security. What happens when we having something of extreme importance that can't be divulged to the public at large because they could give the information to the enemy( sympathists are always out there willing to help their cause, even if it means hurting everyone else in their country ). In order to protect interests of national security, the issues must be kept to a minimum number of people( see the encryption threads of a couple weeks ago ).

    --
    Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
  157. Microsoft nukes by FLuke27 · · Score: 1

    Here's how I think Microsoft will develop its nukes:

    v1.0: doesn't really exist, based on old sketches by Oppenheimer. Used only in idle threats and known as the "electron clouds and mirrors" demo.

    v2.0: uses Itanium. immediately dropped on a target, no underground testing. Microsoft claims no responsibility for the (minor) damage caused.

    v3.0: a dud.

    v3.1: still no testing has been performed, causes significant damage to target. The UN promises to look into it but does nothing.

    v4.0: rumored to be revolutionary, it merely detonates in the lab, destroying Microsoft. Probably cause: lack of testing.

    Around the same time hackers around the world discover how to make a more powerful bomb in their spare time. Its relies on a new scientific principle known as "The Slashdot Effect" wherein an implosion causes all the energy and matter from the surroundings to bombard the target.

    The UN investigates ties between the weapon and Slashdot. Mysteriously, all fingers point to Katz. ;)

  158. UN? naw... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And interestingly, this will done not by the governments themselves, but by proxy: apparently, by the United Nations." -How do you know this has to be the U.N.? In actuality, the Warsaw Pact nearly completely abolished religion during the Cold War. China still keeps a very tight lid on organized religion, requiring sects to be registered with the state.

  159. Predictions for 10/06/99 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Jon Katz posts Short History of the 21st Century
    - Hundreds of Slashdot Users begin posting hilarious predictions about Microsoft failing/warring against various governments/Linux conquering the world/various Transmeta conspiracies/Bill Gates death

  160. In the year 2000 by jfunk · · Score: 2

    2000 Flushes, the toilet cleaning product, will be known as "One flush for every year since Christ was born."

    (ripped uncerimoniously from Conan O'Brian)

  161. China by kannen · · Score: 1

    In 2005 China at last invades Taiwan. Nobody does anything because they are so F***ing huge. It is later learned that Bill Gates acquired China in 2003. The US Economy is now entirely controlled by Gates, as he not only owns the most prevalent OS in the nation, but also controls the source of all plastic figurines. George Lucas halts his merchandising plan for Star Wars 3 so as not to strengthen Bill's grip on the world. Furthermore, Linux gains ground as millions of patriotic Americans do their part to weaken the Chinese/Gates hold on America.

  162. The Techno-Victorians by Janiculan · · Score: 1

    This is an idea introduced to me by Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, that I've had some time to mull over.

    Like the guy who said it said, with our society's increased focus on technology, and its increased impact on our economy, will come an increased generation of low-wage, low-tech workers displaced and estranged from a society that has quickly grown past it's need for them. So, in the mid-21st century, I see 10 percent of the country owning 99 percent of the high-tech stocks, and, in general, posessing personally around 90 percent of anything that could be called "cutting edge" or "high-tech," much like things are beginning to shape-up today. I see the rich, politico class of today slowly integrated, and ultimately, devoured, by an emerging techno-victorian age, that treats cautious geek-dom as the ultimate in social development. E3 and Comdex will be the debutante balls of tomorrow. The jocks of today will be replaced by gamekids. Football and baseball...Quake Seven and Tribes 14. Instead of fast italian cars, it will be more of a status symbol to have the fastest home computer, or the prettiest, tiniest wearable.

    Of course, all the Technovictorians, sans hyphen, will live in carefully-guarded gated comunnities, as a ferverous luddite movement spreads amongst the low-tech plebians, addled by the religious right, which, in order to exert more power over the people, will add technophilia to its ever-growing list of sins.

    Along this train of thought, I predict that by 2060, there will be martial law enforced in the increasingly lawless low-tech states.

    No society I know of has ever been as polarized as the one I'm predicting. There's no telling exactly what will happen after the technological battle-lines are drawn.

    But, if everything goes as planned, I will be your benevolent dictator-for-life, with my queen, Bjork, ruling beside me, as my job will no doubt be well phased-out by wireless networking and intelligent motherboards.

    - Janiculan

    --
    -- Remember: There is no difference between a monopoly and a government. --
  163. exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as something is unexplainable a God will be put in place to explain it by the majority of people. The unexplicable is the Unknown, people fear the Unknown. The ability to attribute the Unknown to God changes it into faith which people can deal with. Ever told a child (your own, sibling, cousin) the answer was "magic" when they asked about something too complex to explain to them (how does the tv work?)...well, religion is the same thing =]

    1. Re:exactly by ParadoXIII · · Score: 1
      So it was before. But now we know the Earth was made from a swirl of dust and rocks around the newly-born Sun. So why do we still cling to this archaic idea of a supreme being who created the Earth? Some would say I was wrong, the evidence was wrong, and God created the Earth, man, and everything in a week. Some would say God's hand can be seen in the force of gravity. Some would say God created the laws of physics and let the world run by them. We'll see when we die, and by then the point will be moot.

      Paradox

      There is no conclusive evidence of life after death; but there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
      -Robert Heinlein
  164. history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many millions were killed during the Inquisition, or the Witch Hunts since the Middle Ages?
    How about the Crusades?

    History is what helps to define something-and Western Civilization's religious history is a little black.

  165. 21st century by SPORKY · · Score: 1

    A leading bio-engineering firm will help solve both the overcrowding and food shortage problems of the future by introducing a revolutionary new product:

    The Meat-vegetable!

    Cows and other commonly eaten animals will be "grown" without their higher mental functions, meaning they will have no independent thoughts (as much as current day cows do anyway), no pain, not even the urge to eat or to move around. They will be fed intravenously and stored in warehouse-like structures, packed in (almost touching) because they will have no need for any sort of space.

    Possible diseases will be controlled by keeping on hand a small group of real cows in the area, and taking genetic samples from them, ensuring diversity of the "cows" in the complex. In the case of some discription of cow plauge, genetic diversity will help check the spread through the entire crop.

    Meat from these "animals" will be cheaper than natural grown ones, unfortuantely putting most small and medium scale ranches out of business.

    This will drastically reduce the land requirements for breeding livestock and open up ex-ranches to become housing or crop-bearing land, increasing the population capacity of the US and feeding the masses cheaply.

    And the most important ramification, of course, will be that those sicko vegitarians will no longer be able to use humanity to animals as a reason not to eat meat. By definition, that arguement can only apply to animals in the wild, ie ones that have enough mental function to register pain or inhumane treatment. Being inhumane to a meat-vegetable would be like being inhumane to a sponge :)

    1. Re:21st century by Rational · · Score: 1

      And the most important ramification, of course, will be that those sicko vegitarians will no longer be able to use humanity to animals as a reason not to eat meat. By definition, that arguement can only apply to animals in the wild,
      ie ones that have enough mental function to register pain or inhumane treatment. Being inhumane to a meat-vegetable would be like being inhumane to a sponge :)


      Actually, as a vegetarian, I don't have anything against any of the above, although I would prefer vat-grown meat to whole anencephalic animals, but as for the "sicko" thing, well, FOAD.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  166. On the positive side(hopefully) by WoDDemandred · · Score: 1

    People will realize that productivity isn't really that important and that they can have more fun and be more happy by just taking life a bit easier.

  167. The Internet by Hobbex · · Score: 3

    By 2000, a Web industry desperate to explain why they are not living up to the stock market expectations blame deep linking and agents for destroying their profits.

    By 2001, software, music, publishing and entertainment makers are complaining about massive losses in profit to do online piracy. Massive lobbying for the US and EU to "do something about it".

    By 2002, global trade organizations set out new laws to step up "the war on free information". Internet sites are required by law to carry back-doors for government robots, linking to a site is forbidden without expressed permission, and ISPs are required to report nodes with high traffic. Possession of pirated information (illegal data) becomes punishable by incarceration.

    Also, the EU and the US legislate for mandatory content ratings on all Internet information. The first trial against a server operator is held in America, where he is sentenced to 12 years in prison. He appeals.

    American President Al Gore, who's government largely bullied these laws into effect internationally, holds a press conference together with Disney, Yahoo, Bertelsman Foundation, and now media company Microsoft, who promise this is the road to a better future.

    By 2003, the case of the server operator who wouldn't agree to meta-data laws reaches the American supreme court. A heavily lobbied and weak supreme court upholds his prison sentence.

    With the War on Free Information going nowhere, and illegal data flying faster than ever over the broadband Internet, the American government sees the court verdict as a green light to install life imprisonment on data piracy, intellectual property violation, and system intrusion.

    Slashdot closes as one of the last reader participation sites. Keeping reader comments within ratings proved impossible.

    By 2004, the term "Dataglob" enters vocabulary, to denote the dynamic, distributed, roaming globs of encrypted illegal data moving around the Internet. The globs are created to escape government regulation by not depending on the physical network for their infrastructure.

    The intellectual property industry releases another report showing that profits are down and piracy is up. The Globs become the scapegoats, and are outlawed. This has little effect on their popularity, since the Web is now a desolate landscape of decent sites full of dancing baloney in the tradition of Disney and Yahoo.

    By 2005, the Dataglobs are drawing scientific interest since there mathematical architecture is now so intricate that they can do anything that the physical network could do before.

    A study is released showing that 78% of all people in the connected world use and post illegal information on the Globs. Public belief in the governments is down to a new low.

    By 2007, A Dutch proposal to review the data laws in the EU is suppressed because of trade war threats from America.

    In America, statistics show that over 1.5 million people are now in prison for data-crime. Other government statistics claim that crime is up, that the economy is down, and that the world is seeing its worst depression since the 1930s. The average person is not noticing this at all, however. They have noticed that life is up, prices are down, and that the streets are safer. They now cyber and data crime is up, but for the most part they are culprits, and open source technology as well as a general growth of knowledge about such matters is keeping them very safe crackers.

    By 2012, an American presidential candidate goes to election on the promise the she will ensure the total freedom of information by getting rid of all intellectual property laws. Polls show her with a stunning 93% rating when her private jet crashes, killing her and everyone on board. Officially, the black box reveals that it was a software glitch, but information is posted on the dataglobs incriminating the NSA of sabotage. An attempt to take it court fails because the data is illegally obtained.

    By 2016, the largest Dataglob declares itself a sovereign state. Citizens are protected by hackers who take down the computer systems and lives of criminals. Citizens are encouraged to protest all government interaction in their lives.

    Several digital currencies are started, and are a great success. The Euro and Dollar enter steep devaluation as people stop using them.

    By 2020, 50% of all people now claim to be citizens of a glob rather than a country. The American government, followed by the EU, finally lends a sweeping goodbye to all laws forbidding the free flow of information. But it is to late for them, a study shows that citizens of the Dataglobs are better off, better protected, and more free than people still obeying the laws of the territorial nations.

    By 2021, the EU and American government hold the first summit with representatives (in one case an intelligent agent rather than a human) of the 12 largest Dataglobs as equals on Antarctica.

    The worthless paper currencies are disbanded.

    By 2025, almost all the connected have given up claim to there territory, and moved online, trying to compete with Globs at their own game.

    By 2030, the world is in a new golden age. With governments competing directly for them, citizens are more free then ever, the none-globbed parts of Internet are coming back alive, and science, based on the ideas of open source rather than patents and profits, is doing better than ever. People dance in the streets (which are more or less free from crime, since physical objects no longer bare much value at all) and smoke a lot of weed.

    By 2032, a Muslim terrorist organization manages to produce a strain of flue carrying a retrovirus that reminds of an accelerated HIV infection. Known drugs and vaccines against HIV do not help.

    By 2035, the last human dies. The computer of a 55 year old Linux user is left running by a cold fusion reactor, displaying the text "Why did we bother?" over and over again.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

  168. Genetic Purity must NOT happen by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    Using genetic manipulation to control the variation in the gene pool of any species is an action doomed to have horrible repercussions.


    Katz's prediction seems to be working off the popular, but incorrect, model that evolution is something that continually strives toward greater and greater perfection. In actuality evolution is nothing more than a response to change, no species is "more evolved" than another, it just has met different needs for survival.


    Evolution also cannot create new genes except in the case of mutation but that is very unreliable. Instead it must rely on the genetic variation within a species to meet its requirements. This can be shown in human bipedalism, our backbone is still designed to be supported at both ends as it would be in an animal that walks on all fours. It has modified to have a curve that allows us to balance ourselves, but it also creates a strong dispostion for lower back problems.


    If we artifically limit the variation in our species we become specialized, and as we have seen time and time again, overspecialization (biological or cultural) is a one way ticket to eventual extinction.


    The American Indians in the western US depended on the buffalo for almost every aspect of their culture, while this formed a strong and stable lifestyle that existed in harmony with the world it also allowed a deadly weakness to filter in. The early pioneers recognized this weakness and sadly exploited it to a terrible extreme, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of buffalo simply to deprive the Indians of that resource.


    A more close to home example for many people would be AIDS. Certain people seem to be completely immune to this disease, we know a little of how they are immune but almost nothing of why. If we were to try and select which genes we wanted and which we didn't (as the Eugenics programs established in the early half of this century tried to do) we might unwittingly destroy a gene that protects us, or will protect us, from a currently unknown disease.

    1. Re:Genetic Purity must NOT happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%, it would be a total disaster.

  169. get rid of one man, one vote by MrDeviant · · Score: 1

    to offset the idiotic masses, voting power should be based on knowledge. for example, before each election, voter would take aptitude and knowledge test. that person's vote would then be multiplied by appropriate 'voting power'.

  170. 1984 happens after 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2025 - Cheap webcams hooked to the now everywhere internet make it possible for totalitarian governments (on the left and the right) to really start watching and controlling their people.

  171. Why religious hysteria? by Thag · · Score: 1

    Why would this cause mass religious hysteria?

    Did the discovery that the earth moves around the sun cause some kind of mass die-off? Or the splitting of the atom?

    Give us religious types SOME credit, for crying out loud. We're not all insane cultists, any more than you're a mad scientist! :)

    It WOULD provide a healthy dose of reality for people trying to use the Bible as a scientific text though, like the idiot who tried to use the bible to prove that pi was equal to three (forgetting that old testament Hebrew didn't HAVE decimals). Which is a Good Thing, IMHO.

    Jon

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  172. GODDAMNED MODERATORS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What the hell is wrong with you people?? The poster just made a prediction and some powerhappy moderator fuck said to himself "Ooh, this comment is religious - I'd better moderate it down."

    Just because you don't agree with something is NOT reason enough to moderate it down, and moreover, it was hardly offtopic as the moderation said. In fact, it was quite on topic, as the topic was predictions for the 21st century.

    Sometimes I wish moderation was abolished...

  173. AI by ccorner · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree with Arthur C. Clarke's view on artificial life-forms. Even though most of us won't admit it, we want money and power. If AI's become as intelligent as humans, they will probably have wants just as ours. Money and power. Since they are computers, their intelligence would probably be more than enough to become powerfull and dominant. I think that we should be careful when it comes to AI and not let it get out of hand. Or better yet, just leave well enough alone!

    --
    Quid rides ignare?
  174. As I see it... by kurtkilgor · · Score: 1

    There's definitely going to be a lot of disappointment. There will be a continued increase in terrorism, poverty, and population, until something snaps. I expect a major war to take place, maybe not destroying all life, but one that will wake a lot of complacent Americans up.

    Also, I expect to see the human brain unravelled. We will be able to make machines that can work as well as a brain does, and we will be able to deal with the brain itself in a much more sophisticated way. We will also be able to manufacture machines on par with animals, something happening on my very desk.

    I agree with other comments that things don't change fundamentally, but perhaps at least one person will be able to transform himself into something higher. For instance, to be able to directly interface with a computer and thus gain a sort of artficial ESP.

    Really, right now, we're at the stage of being able to make a machine which can pass a Turing test, for instance. The only issue is time taken to develop such a machine. Of course, when it is ever made, it can develop new ones.

    The only barrier is politics, and the dangers that government poses to private resources. A nuclear war, an economic failure, or a disaster can all cause the society to go bonkers and prevent people from making these wonderful things.

    On a personal note, I intend to have a stable relationship with a female by 2100 :)

  175. Re:Mote in God's Eye, and how to apply it to us by ParadoXIII · · Score: 1

    The trick to the "museums" from Mote was the Motie's knowledge that their civilization would collapse every couple millennia due to overpopulation, so they tried to start it up again as quickly as possible. The first step, then, to preventing/lessening the destruction of civilization as we know it is to seriously recognize that it's a problem and that we need to do something about it.
    For example: If we're worried about nuclear war, we start up a facility in the place we judge least likely to be nuked, and possibly some other places, and set up a sort of biodome covered with about an inch of lead. In our case, as far as I can tell, we need not just worry about the destruction of society, but of life as we know it.
    Of course, the humans tending (and presumably living in) the biodomes would need to know how to reseed the Earth in the event of mass destruction. If anyone's ever read the Homecoming series by Orson Scott Card, what we need is someone to take the role of Shedemai (from the fifth book, Earthborn). Gardener of Earth...
    We definitely need to put some technology in the domes, too, or some similar structure. Seems to me, though, like human survival's a bit more important than the salvation of art.

    Paradox

  176. Farming today is *not* menial labor by binarybits · · Score: 1

    Farming today is simply not menial labor in the sense that it was 100 years ago. By no means am I disparaging the skills or value of what farmers do. But the farmer today produces food for dozens if not hundreds of people. I don't consider him a simple laborer as farmers of previous generations were.

    Besides, I didn't say that menial labor is a bad thing. I was just pointing out that the amount of menial labor necessary to feed us is shrinking. True, we still have people picking fruit and such, but there are far fewer of these people than there once was, and they (or at least their children) have the opportunity to get better jobs. There's nothing wrong with being a menial laborer. But I do think that it is a good thing that fewer such people are necessary to provide for our basic needs.

  177. Re:Electronic Democracy, Judeo/Christian Values by Absynthe · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is nit-picking but I've never understood the phrase judeo/christian. The two religions share 5 books together and the torah can't even truely be said to be part of the hebrew religion, judaism as it exists today is the product of millenia of change, adaptation, i.e. the neccesity of sacrafice depending on the availability of a temple and the occasional enslavement of the populace. True they share certain value's but that doesn't mean they are so monolithicaly similar that you can lump the two together in a hyphenated word.
    Most religions share basic values that are fairly common sence. This is why these religions have stood the test of time.
    Subvert anger by forgiveness. Jainism. Samanasuttam 136
    The best deed of a great man is to forgive and forget. Islam (Shiite). Nahjul Balagha, Saying 201
    Where there is forgiveness, there is G-d Himself. Sikhism. Adi Granth, Shalok, Kabir, pg. 1372
    If you efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! G-d is forgiving, merciful. Islam. Qur'an 64.14
    The superior man tends to forgive wrongs and deals leniently with crimes. Confucianism. I Ching 40: Release
    If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Christianity. Matthew 5.23-24
    The Day of Atonement atones for sins against G-d, not for sins against man, unless the injured person has been appeased. Judaism. Mishnah, Yoma 8.9
    Show endurance in humiliation and bear no grudge. Taoism. Treatise on Response and Retribution
    Because all these religions can agree on the wisdom of forgiveness should we give lip service to the judeo/christian/taoist/confucian/jainist/shiite/is lamic tradition?
    P.S. I worship a god named lah-lah, and he thinks your all full of shit

  178. In the year 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taco bell will introduce the fortune tostada. The most common fortune will be: "Tonight you will suffer from crippling diarhea"

  179. A history of science and God... by ParadoXIII · · Score: 1

    Here's how I see the history of humankind's understanding of God and science:

    *Early humans saw the world around them. They realized that they could not control it. Humans hate not having control, so they created God(s) in their own image. Transfer of characteristics: God controls everything. We look like God. Hence: We have some aspect of control over everything. Faulty reasoning, but it made us feel a little more secure in an insecure world.

    *Advent of mathematical and scientific understanding. We actually understand certain simple aspects of the world. Anything we don't understand, or can't explain, it was an "act of God." Another characteristic of humans: We hate to admit we don't know something. So "God works in mysterious ways."

    *Today: Vast understanding of the way the world works. We know that if we throw something up, it'll come down as long as we throw it low enough. We know that when we deprive a flame of oxygen, it'll go out. We know that if we add HCl to NaOH, we'll get water, salt, and some heat. So why do we need God?
    God is there to give people a reason to think that the world is right. God is there because our parents and our rabbis said so. God is there because he's God.

    I can tell you one thing, though: If God really does exist, he's going to have to conform to the laws of physics just like the rest of us.

  180. The return of the airship. by Rational · · Score: 1

    Mile-wide airships for bulk cargo transportation, pleasure cruising and, of course, billboard advertising. Big and stable enough to ride out hurricanes and filled with helium to avoid unpleasant "Hindenburg" episodes. They will never land, dropping elevator cables instead for loading and unloading.

    Eventually, airships become so massive and stable that it's possible to launch rockets from them, reducing greatly the cost of placing payloads in orbit. Some people will live on those craft permanently, exploiting tax loopholes.

    Airships are just too cool (and potentially useful) not to come back someday...

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  181. What is the Matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2020 - Pfizer releases the "Mood Monitor". A small device implanted into the base of the cerebral cortex, the Mood Monitor continuously monitors serotonin and dopamine levels in the subject's brain, and automatically responds to abnormal brain biochemistry. No one is ever unhappy again. 2025 - The first fully functioning neural sensory interface is developed by a team of scientists at MIT. 2027 - Sony applies for over 300 basic patents in neural sensory interface technology. 2030 - The first fully functional neural sensory interface "brainjack" is released on the open market by the Sony corporation. Within 3 days there are over 10,000 deaths due to users who, having remained logged in continuously for 72 hours, unwittingly die of thirst. 2031 - Sony markets the "EmbryoVat 3000", a tub of warm pinkish liquid goo that can sustain a human body for years on end. Immediately afterwards, millions of Americans disappear from the real world and continue to exist only as graphical representations in a world that resembles "The Matrix", only without the evil AI's running everything. 2040 - The "Real World Society" is created, a luddite group hell bent on destroying the artificial world in which 95% per cent of the world's population now spends more than half of their time. 2045 - Nuclear fusion. A single bucket of seawater can now power the world's energy needs for an entire year. 2050 - Humanity bids the actual world farewell. A collection of artificially intelligent robots is given control of EmbryoVat and nuclear fusion maintenance. Meanwhile, human beings continue to exist in a artificially generated world where the food tastes great, everyone is beautiful, and the sex is awesome. 2060 - Neuroscientists successfully create a one-to-one digital map of the human brain. The biological information stored by neurons can now be mapped into pure data. Within a year, the human body is obsolete. 2065 - The last EmbryoVat goes offline. Humanity now exists only as a digital representation of its former biological self. People are immortal and perpetually happy. 2100 - Using a super-powered radio telescope run by robots, humanity contacts the first extraterrestrial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, they exist in the same informational world that human beings do. Although the initial culture shock is a little odd, everybody eventually gets along.

  182. What is the Matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2020 - Pfizer releases the "Mood Monitor". A small device implanted into the base of the cerebral cortex, the Mood Monitor continuously monitors serotonin and dopamine levels in the subject's brain, and automatically responds to abnormal brain biochemistry. No one is ever unhappy again.

    2025 - The first fully functioning neural sensory interface is developed by a team of scientists at MIT.

    2027 - Sony applies for over 300 basic patents in neural sensory interface technology.

    2030 - The first fully functional neural sensory interface "brainjack" is released on the open market by the Sony corporation. Within 3 days there are over 10,000 deaths due to users who, having remained logged in continuously for 72 hours, unwittingly die of thirst.

    2031 - Sony markets the "EmbryoVat 3000", a tub of warm pinkish liquid goo that can sustain a human body for years on end. Immediately afterwards, millions of Americans disappear from the real world and continue to exist only as graphical representations in a world that resembles "The Matrix", only without the evil AI's running everything.

    2040 - The "Real World Society" is created, a luddite group hell bent on destroying the artificial world in which 95% per cent of the world's population now spends more than half of their time.

    2045 - Nuclear fusion. A single bucket of seawater can now power the world's energy needs for an entire year.

    2050 - Humanity bids the actual world farewell. A collection of artificially intelligent robots is given control of EmbryoVat and nuclear fusion maintenance. Meanwhile, human beings continue to exist in a artificially generated world where the food tastes great, everyone is beautiful, and the sex is awesome.

    2060 - Neuroscientists successfully create a one-to-one digital map of the human brain. The biological information stored by neurons can now be mapped into pure data. Within a year, the human body is obsolete.

    2065 - The last EmbryoVat goes offline. Humanity now exists only as a digital representation of its former biological self. People are immortal and perpetually happy.

    2100 - Using a super-powered radio telescope run by robots, humanity contacts the first extraterrestrial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, they exist in the same informational world that human beings do. Although the initial culture shock is a little odd, everybody eventually gets along.

  183. Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2008: The Pope denounces Bill Gates as the Antichrist.
    2010: AOL declares itself a separate nation, no longer bound by any laws but its own.
    2014: All remaining independent corporations merge into one central entity, known as Omnicorp.
    2020: A giant fireball engulfs Western Europe for no particular reason.
    2027: The US annexes Canada.
    2030: The writer breaks off his predictions because he has better things to do.

  184. Slashdot nettiquette tip: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is bad form to follow up your posts as an AC.

    1. Re:Slashdot nettiquette tip: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      air conditioner?

    2. Re:Slashdot nettiquette tip: by Prince+Caspian · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip, but I would never respond in the way the first AC did. I thought what I wrote was relevant, but if the moderators disagree, c'est la vie.

      "Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."

      --

      "It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
  185. Human nature and nature don't care what year it is by grumling · · Score: 1

    One thing that never seems to get mentioned in all the discussions of the future is that we are going to be in an ice age at some point (yes, I'm well aware of the global warming predictions that are mostly inconclusive). The last time this happened was right around the time the Roman Empire fell, and many historians think it was a factor. We're a little more prepared this time, but watch for all energy sources to become strained and cost to increase dramatically. It can make the 70's look like a walk in the park. Sure, there's plenty of options out there for developing new sources of energy, but funding development of them was not ever a priority.

    We're also way overdue for a plague. The last major plague was limited to Europe, but with global travel comes global problems. It won't be easy to knock it out, either. I know someone whose wife is getting over an infection that almost killed her. The doctors had to use a massive amount of antibiotics just to get her stabilized. The super-bugs that exist today, that resist all known cures (some even feast on them) are only going to get more prevalent.

    This may cause society to fractionalize into finer and finer groups. Paranoia will increase to the point that people will be afraid to have any contact with people they don't know. Travel will decrease, destroying what's left of most of the US economy (no more cars, highways, gasoline). The giant agriculture conglomerates will fall apart, since delivery of food will be more expensive than growing it yourself. People won't have time to develop technology much beyond current levels (and much of the knowledge will be lost due to neglect), since we'll all be trying to survive. People will flee the cities and coastal areas to find good farmland, and to escape the terrible living conditions. Major centralized government may become irrelevant.

    At this point, we will be in a full-fledged dark age. Something (religion or the state) will be the only source of information, and much of that will be tainted to keep the source in power. It may not last quite as long as the last one, since, hopefully there will be enough people who have enough sense to archive current technology and develop new ideas in the barn.

    Don't think it can't happen. I'm sure the Romans thought they'd be around forever, too. Of maybe I should just cheer up.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  186. In Australia we already have plastic bills. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our notes over here are made of plastic, and they have a see through window in them with Holograms and shit.

  187. Moderated to 0??? Flamebait? WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone with a brain is watching, you should realize that downward moderation is worse than useless.

  188. My predictions and comments by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

    Millenium
    2000: The misinformed who believe that the second millenium consists of all the years that start with "1" (1000 - 1999) realise their folly when they realise that the second millenium must therefore also consist of all of the centuries that start with "1" (10th to 19th), and therefore the second millenium probably ended on December 31, 1899.

    Quantum computing
    2012: The introduction of quantum computing makes old encryption methods obsolete. New quantum encryption methods are invented to cover this need. To the NSA's great annoyance, these new methods prove to be easy to use, provide good encryption, and cannot be tapped without the tapping being detected. The NSA and other espionage organisations, perceiving the new technology as a threat, try to strangle the emerging technology in the cradle, in the same way the record industry did with Digital Audiotape in the 1980's. They fail, and Quantum Encryption gains rapid acceptance in the market.

    Genetics
    2034: Studies show that due to advanced lifesaving medical methods and infertility treatments, the human gene pool is being dramatically weakened as individuals who would have surely died even a century before are instead being permitted to live and raise many children. A new and highly controversial international treaty is signed that outlaws infertility treatments and compels hospitals to sterilise anyone who is admitted for life-threatening conditions. One unexpected side-effect is the complete elimination of all of the inbred aristocratic class worldwide within forty years.

    --

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  189. What the hell, eberyone else is doing it... by Ratoslov+Lenev · · Score: 1

    2.1.2000: I awaken with a pounding headache wearing someone elses's underpants, in another state.

    5.5.2000: Idiots are once again dissappointed by the fact that the earth is STILL here.

    6.*.2000: Windows 2000 comes out, at $500 each. When you execute the installer, you see a box which says 'Sucker.' Bill gats has skipped the country.

    *.*.2000: Amazingly enough, 98% of Americans write in (variously) 'Donald Duck', 'None of the above', 'Fuck you', 'Hank the Angry Drunk Dwarf', 'Controversial Jack and Duck', or 'The end is near'. Jesse Ventura gets 1% of the vote, and the only person who votes for George Dubya Bush is himself.
    *.*.2000-*.*.2060: Use the history from _Shadowrun, 3rd ed._, but replace all instances of 'Shiawase' with 'Microsoft' and forget the whole Dunkelzhann thing: Linus Torvalds' brain-in-a-bottle gets elected by write-in.

  190. You forgot one... by oblisk · · Score: 1
    Possible Future #6 -- Technological Jihad

    Technology Grows at such a rapid pace Next Century there exists a movement or a religion which is Anti-Tech, and who's ultimate goal is a holy war against Technology. The Holy War ensues and Geeks like us become renagades in a Dark Ages sociaty.

    Actually shit thats how it was not even 5 years ago. It's Amazing how things change so fast.


    ------------------------------------

  191. "... in reality there is no millennium" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title of an editorial by syndicated columnist Charley Reese

  192. Oops. by phil+reed · · Score: 1

    That will teach me to write fast without doublechecking. That reference should be to November 1994 Scientific American.


    ...phil

    --

    ...phil
    "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
  193. Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, arms buildups? Where (other than the U.S.)?

  194. Short Term and Long Term Predicitons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Short Term Predictions are always too ambitious.
    Long Term Predicitions are never ambitious enough.

    -AC

  195. The Truth Machine by Atypical+Stranger · · Score: 1

    Has anyone ever read the book "The Truth Machine." If it is the book I'm thinking of it could be considered to be a true "History of the Future." It tells the story of a genius in competition with an evil genius to invent a perfect lie dectector. Taking place throughout much of the 21st century the beginning of each chapter tells of events that "happened" that year. These blurbs are almost as good as the rest of the book. If you like good science fiction read this book.
    Wow! that sounded like a 8th grade book report. If someone has read the book (and liked it) please post a better description of it below.

  196. Bring Back Stoning of False Prophets? by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Should the gullible be exterminated?

    This is a fundamental ethical question of the modern era.

    Before answering a sardonic "yes", thereby demonstrating how sophisticated you are in your own eyes, consider this:

    Have you demanded that guys like Katz, Clarke, Sterling, etc. put their credibility where their mouth is?

    If not, perhaps this is because you are a superman of the post-Nietzsche era -- and therefore you abide civilization's replacement of the heathen "might makes right" with the literati's "sophistry makes right". But are you really that much of a wise guy?

    There is a reason false prophets were stoned:

    There wasn't any other way to hold them accountable for the damage they did to gullible people.

    So if you aren't entirely certain you can con the con artists, perhaps you should consider insisting, rather relentlessly, that these inspirational futurists put something on the line other than their promiscuous words.

    For instance, has Katz ever made odds on the viability of the Princeton Tokamak?

    If there had been bets placed on the viability of geosynchronous satellites back in the 1940's would the odds have been as biased against Clarke's predictions as his fans would lead us to believe?

    And what ever happened to HAL, Art?

  197. the future... it's so... futuristic by geektweaked.com · · Score: 1

    here's my predictions.
    Jan 1, 1999- The US economy will be in shambles over Y2K scare. Not the Y2K bug itself, but because every idiot with a bank account will be pulling his money out of the bank.

    2/6/00 2600 freaks around america will have their day.

    March/April 2000 MCI Worldcom will buy out AT&T, in a deal worth roughly 800 billion dollars. People shout 'monopoly!'

    June, 2000 Microsoft Lindows, a combination Linux distro and GUI will be released. It will be of incredibly high quality, alas nobody in the geek community will trust it because, well, it's Microsoft, dammit!

    August, 2000 Windows officially becomes 'old school'. Kids get nostalgic over win 3.11. Windows is out of print, Microsoft becomes the Atari of the computer world, and slowly vanishes without a trace. Lindows, however, is sold to an as yet unnamed company which will take it to the level of 'mainstream OS.' people will cheer! 'hooray for lindows'!

    Dec. 2000 People will realize that the millenium is only now about to end/begin. Confused, the Backstreet Boys release "Real Millenium."

    Jan 1 2001 The world suddenly ends. No, really. It'll be rather unexpected.


    Well, that's all folks.

  198. It's Gattaca, not Gattica by TRS-80 · · Score: 1

    The film is called Gattaca, because G A T C are the letters of DNA coding.

  199. Rome by EvilSoloman · · Score: 1

    If things do get as diabolically boring as the root article says - with supercomputers, AI business moguls, and genetic cleansing - we'll probably cause utter social apocalypse, somehow.

    No system so stagnant could ever continue to exist, by reason of the natural, chaotic nature of the universe. The problem with such a vision (or nightmare, as it were) and indeed, the Orwellian dictatorships feared by all, is that somewhere along the line, a link in the chain will snap, bringing the entire culture to its knees.

    On that note, I'd like to believe that if we don't totally obliterate ourselves in the near future, that a simple, dark-age society would be all that's left standing, with their religion founded upon some old fart's half-crazed memories of a computer game mixed in with supreme being ideology.

    Now that's irony; humanity would be serving a 'devine being' that is more literally of our own fabrication than many atheists argue modern religion to be.

    --
    EvilSoloman
  200. Why is Katz a featured writer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sucks. He annoys me. 'Nuff said

  201. Wishful ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the case that anybody is psychotic enough to read this far into the comments... I predict that people in the future will think many of the more ambitious predictions of today are really silly, as we think predictions from the past are silly. Nevertheless, people will continue making such predictions. Many of the so-called visionaries will also be considered to be overly idealistic Commies.

  202. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2050, a respected fusion scientist says that commercially viable fusion power is 20 to 30 years away.

  203. Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current estimates (by the petrochemical industry itself) until world-wide oil-production begins declining is another 10-20 years,perhaps as little as 5.

    The estimate is knowen reserves accesable at current market price.

    I do not think that estimate has ever been higher than 30 years since people started pumping oil.

    you are forgeting a few things:

    New reserves are beenig found all the time

    There is a lot of oil that we know about that is not used because the price of oil does not justify it. A small price increase in oil means may more oil becaumes economicly viable for extraction ex) Oil sands

    The use of oil will dircrese if the price goes up people will start buing smaller cars, insulating houses etc..

  204. let's not confuse "pessimistic" and "realistic" :) by Kabby · · Score: 1
    ...this is definitely realistic though. Can't wait 'till 2025. Anyone willing to bet that it'll happen in Latin America? :P

    /me sees score drop to -10, Head Troll...

  205. Biogenetics sucks! Sociology! by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

    What are we going to do when we suddenly find out that genetic engineering can't change our intelligence the way we want it to? We'll be able to design children to have the right sex and the right hair color and height, and maybe even make sure they're intellectually capable. But we'll find that intelligence is a socially formed phenomenon that no amount of rearranged DNA will revolutionize and that personality is beyond hope of genetic changing. Emotionally deficient people? Heh. Will we riot against the biologists for not finding what we wanted them to?

    Oh, and BTW, that bit about supercomputing curing blindness and cancer was really...cute. Go Katz go!

    --
    I'm not a smorgasbord.
  206. Just think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if only we networked the brains of all the slashdot anonymous cowards, we'd have a borganism with a collective IQ almost comparable to a human being!

  207. Phoning in predictions... by Glenn+Hauman · · Score: 1

    By the year 2003, your telephone bill will be one flat charge, allowing you to call almost anywhere on the planet for unlimited amounts of time. Long distance charges will be eradicated.

    --
    Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes

    http://www.bb.com

  208. resetting earth by ruppel · · Score: 1

    In addition to putting back the oil and other minerals into the environment in the distant future we'll also start to dismantle all the great superstructures built by humans throughout the millenia. Our extended lifespan will allow us to start our colonisation of the universe but the timescale of such a project makes it unneccessary to leave any form of high tech behind on earth. Human kind will be divided into those adventurers who will go explore the stars in huge comfortable spaceships ala "Culture" and those who decide to go "native" on a planet rendered to the state it was 50000 years ago. We'll be the seeds of a new population on and off earth, returning in a more distant future as aliens to a sociological experiment called earth.

  209. More immediate issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While many of the longterm predictions are interesting, if for no other reason than hilighting some of the pretty neat technology extant now, there are some very interesting realities that we will have to deal with in the much more local future. With the induction of IPv6 (2^128 addresses) and less than $1 match-head sized web servers (already in existance) every light-bulb and refrigerator sold in the next few years will be accessible online (it will allow companies to track their products and repair them remotely). General ignorance and careless coding will mean one bad standard will build on another and very soon we'll have an entirely networked electronic world (i.e. not just harmless computers, but the stuff that really matters -- airplanes, elevators, and the like) built of microsoft quality software. Its not a world I'm looking forward to living in.

    This is unfortunate since this kind of thing will be the testing ground for the kind of things that have been suggested that actually sound very promising (convergence of cybernetic and biological technology, and the stronger integration of networked technologies into our lives). The internet was built from the ground up on some pretty simple yet functional principles; unfortunately, as microsoft continues to demonstrate, when corporations are involved, simple and straightforward are never enough... technologies have to be made as awkward and proprietary as possible to prevent others from tailgating on a companies R&D.

    On a similar (though fundementally unrelated) note, it will be interesting to witness corporate attempts to proprieties their biological products in the next few decades. No biotech firm is going to want their mosted prized genome stolen and modified by another corporation or individual, or just bred naturally. What might be the result...encoded DNA that can only replicate with the help of a key protein? Animals/Plants that can only exist when given special hormone treatements known only by their parent corporation? Ultimately as biotech and cybernetics converge, human gene sequences will be the most prized resource (humans are complex systems... creating perfect one will require more than just intimate knowledge of the genome). I think ultimately we will replace or incorporate computers into ourselves; it might happen because of fear of inferiority (to AI) or simply an explosion in biotech. In either case it will be interesting to see how we protect what will be our most valued resource, but ultimately one that was intented to reproduce itself naturally.

    Sheer sheer@uclink4.berkeley.edu

  210. Predictably ... by lovebyte · · Score: 1

    ...next january, most people will believe they are in the 21st century.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  211. and before herbert... there was Aristotle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I dug Aristotle.

    Pretty much all political philosophers up through Hobbes were advocating benevolent dictators, saying that the sheer nature of democracy (rule by the many in their own self interest) was a Bad Thing. The world would be stagnant and brutal, etc.

    By the time Locke started spouting off his gibberish we were going downhill.

    God save the Queen!

  212. Re:10 More Cool Preditions JAVA?! by xQx · · Score: 1

    4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.

    Yeah, so now all IT professionals can talk to everyone else with no compatability problems. Unfortunatly during the talking process your body will completely lock up while your talk process uses 100% of your brain, talking takes 5 times longer, and large companies have added their own words to the language, so they can understand everything you say, but unless you use the updated Java Virtual Brain, codnamed M$JVM, you can't understand them.

  213. I'm sure your ancestors harassed Copernicus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ok, the existence of nothing, as in not space, not dust, not a universe, not stars, etc... Nothing. And then the spontaneous creation of a universe through some mischance is what 'science' proposes. If this doesn't seem absurd [...]

    The Earth is not at the center of the universe. The Sun actually sits at the center of the solar system and the earth revolves about the sun.

    If this doesn't seem absurd [...]

    Sound familiar? I'm sure it did sound absurd if not outright heretical and worthy of a death sentence at one time... Pity you religious types can't execute scientific heretics anymore (at least not in the civilized nations). Must be drivin' you nuts.

  214. Farming today is *not* menial labor... by drox · · Score: 1

    ... it just pays like it! :^)

    So much of today's "farming" is not farming at all, but rather large agri-business, managed by people who don't live on the land they profit from, and thus have little concern for preserving it. You can bet their children aren't going to live on and work the land. Without an incentive to preserve the land for future generations, the production of food becomes entirely (short-term) profit-driven.

  215. 2020 by bartman · · Score: 1

    William Gates clones himself, force grows the new entity to an age of 16 in one year, and undergoes a brain transplant into his new body. It is estimated that he will be able to repeat the procedure every 60 years for about 300 years until his brain decays into a pudding. The entire procedure is estimated by reporters to cost around $10 Billion USD, well within Gates range. Outcries ensue from religious leaders outraged that Gates will be avoiding damnation enternal in the afterlife (though everyone knows they are just pissed he can afford it and they cant).

    On his release from the transplant surgery (on 2021 April 30th), Gates is gunned down outside the hospital, dying immediately from a head wound, though he was hit twice. The gunman, claiming that he is innocent and "just a patsy", is given the chair in a public execution televised on Fox. While being strapped into the chair, he screams, "I just couldnt stand the thought of that guy f^cking everybody and trying to take over the world every night for another 300 years!"

    Oddly enough, doomsayers and astrologists had marked 2021/04/30 as a day of "A great cataclysm, the end of the world." On rechecking their notes, they discover that it really was "A narrowly averted cataclysm, possibly the end of the world."

    Later evidence reveals that it would have been impossible for the gunman to have hit Gates in the head from the angle he allegedly fired the shots. Conspiracy theories fly around the internet for about 3 days, and then everybody decides that they are just happy Gates is dead and leave it rest.

    --
    -- bartman
  216. re: Digital Democracy & Majorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever hear of proportional representation? Only the US and a few other countries are using outdated tech like winner-take-all elections. -- Ender, Duke of URL http://www.fairvote.org/pr/intro.htm

  217. Food Wars in our future ? by donpaulo · · Score: 1

    wow, well first of all as a forum we as users have to take all we read with a large supply of salt. I for one use a shaker with my tequila.

    however the topic here is food its availability and the consequences of its not being available.

    Despite what technofiles and other futurists who worship tech will tell you, food availability is not increasing. There was a international debate earlier this century about the green revolution and how the developing world would "make up" for a lack of food. What is happening is that more outlying acreage with smaller carrying capacity is being utilized for food prodcution while local high yielding acreage is being plowed under and turned into malls, parking lots, highways and other modern utilities. Technofiles would have us believe that with the addition of fertilizer these outlying lands can be more fully utilized for the production of food or animal husbandry. This may be useful over the short term but as the land is intensively farmed it loses carrying capacity, not to mention runoff of top soil. While it would be convenient to discuss somewhere in the USA where these conditions exist I would point out to those who have read this far that the USA is pretty much not really where the problem is at its worst. We must take an honest assesement of the developing world.

    What is at the heart of the food production issue are a number of INTL issues. First is the corporate farm, second is farm labor immigration, third is the increasing dependancy of the developing world upon developed world markets, fourth is market pressure upon food prices, fifth is the future of family farming. Although there are many other issues contained within this debate I would limit its scope to these 5 key issues.

    Thus we must ask ourselves food for profit at what cost to the global carrying capacity ?

    Immigrant labor for food production and the effect on human rights and labor conditions.

    The future holds a few constants. One is an ever increasing number of humans on the earth, all needing regular caloric intake. Two is an ever increasing use of marginal land for food production. Three is an increased connection between what is grown in the developing world so it can be shipped for sale in the developed world. Four is a direct relationship between sustainable farming techniques versus intensive bottom line farming and the effect upon the carrying capacity of the land.

    this issue is far to complex to be contained within this one post or the sum total of all the posts on this site !

    this is just a few FACTS to wet your whistle.

    where technology can help this situation is in maintaining INTL discussions, assisting in distribution of food stocks to those in need, study of top soil runoff and its avoidance, and the continuation of foodsotck planning. Things like which foodstock grows best in which environment and the avoidance of growing certain foods in areas not suitable for its growing.

    looking forward to continuing this conversation: