Jump to content

The year 3000


Akrid

What will the world be like in Y3K?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. What will the world be like in Y3K?

    • Green, filled with nature and happyness, hardly any people
      3
    • Same as now, more people
      8
    • More urban everywhere, billions more people
      17
    • A Machine planet, so many people our lifes are worthless
      10
    • Post nuclear wasteland, nobody left
      12
    • Totally differant, new super race in control, humans only a myth
      7
    • Taken over by aliens, Earth become a gallatic gas station
      2
    • Apocalypse, Earth ruined to ashes, demons etc.
      6
    • Utopia, science brings immortality and perfection to all man
      10
    • Ants get big, consume all, ant world
      8


Recommended Posts

Hmm, I think that the world will form into one large nation and global terrorists will take out important figures and such becomes the down come of the entire world blah blah blah /idea :P

 

Oh, and anti-matter bombs will wipe out the world (yes, scientits are ACTUALLY thinking of it :ph34r: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Hmm, I think that the world will form into one large nation and global terrorists will take out important figures and such becomes the down come of the entire world blah blah blah /idea :P

 

Oh, and anti-matter bombs will wipe out the world (yes, scientits are ACTUALLY thinking of it :ph34r: )

If you're thinking that terrorists would be the ones deploying antimatter bombs, the production of insignificant quantities of antimatter requires large investments of time, money, and materials. Nuclear weaponry is far more feasible for small organizations.

 

Please, do your research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I'd like to see Nanotechnology on a massive scale (well, not actually see per se, coz I'll either be dead or living as a brain floating inna tank :P ). Perhaps the tech could be used for extending human lifespans into the 1000s of years, which would be useful when it comes to space exploration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...nanotechnology on a massive scale...

In other words, technology.

LOL ;D

 

But, I think he means Nanotechnology on a global scale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( I would never ever want nanotechnology to occur. I mean yes, the reward would be bountyfull but think of the result if an error occurred. Here is a thought. Say they inject nanobots into people to rebuild lost cells and help fight off disease's. The nanobots also repair damaged genes and demolecularize cancer cells. However an error occurs and the nanobots begin demolecularizing healthy cells. eventually you have nanobots which are in everyone damaging thier genes and creating havok.This is an actual theory known as the mud theory (I might be spelling it wrong). Also if robots rebelled against humans, humans would have a chance to fight back if we were completly biotic. however when you put the enemy in you, the nanobots can in affect do whatever they want to you and you can do nothing about it. they could even control your body if they wanted to. All in all, i do not fancy nanobots because to much interdependence leads to dependence and dependence on another entity is not good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( I would never ever want nanotechnology to occur. I mean yes, the reward would be bountyfull but think of the result if an error occurred. Here is a thought. Say they inject nanobots into people to rebuild lost cells and help fight off disease's. The nanobots also repair damaged genes and demolecularize cancer cells. However an error occurs and the nanobots begin demolecularizing healthy cells. eventually you have nanobots which are in everyone damaging thier genes and creating havok.This is an actual theory known as the mud theory (I might be spelling it wrong). Also if robots rebelled against humans, humans would have a chance to fight back if we were completly biotic. however when you put the enemy in you, the nanobots can in affect do whatever they want to you and you can do nothing about it. they could even control your body if they wanted to. All in all, i do not fancy nanobots because to much interdependence leads to dependence and dependence on another entity is not good.

 

 

That's actually a pretty over-stated risk. For one thing, self-replicating nanomachines like you're thinking of just don't work. Even ignoring the limits of our technology, I strongly suspect we're talking about fundamental laws of physics getting in the way. Not that nanotechnology is a useless concept (and it already exists, like it or not), but the scifi versions are just that, fiction.

 

Of course so are any ideas of "technology rebelling against humans". Even if somehow we manage to create true artificial intelligence, proper programming limitations and built-in self-destruct orders will end the revolution very quickly. The highly unlikely chain of events that could produce any kind of rebellion is once again, pure science fiction.

 

Hmm, I think that the world will form into one large nation and global terrorists will take out important figures and such becomes the down come of the entire world blah blah blah /idea :P

 

Oh, and anti-matter bombs will wipe out the world (yes, scientits are ACTUALLY thinking of it :ph34r: )

If you're thinking that terrorists would be the ones deploying antimatter bombs, the production of insignificant quantities of antimatter requires large investments of time, money, and materials. Nuclear weaponry is far more feasible for small organizations.

 

Please, do your research.

 

Really, anyone deploying antimatter bombs is kind of silly. Creating antimatter is a (pretty significant) net energy loss. Even with the most advanced technology possible, all that antimatter weapons could do is impove energy density, allowing the same amount of destruction in a smaller package (but still with the same energy investment required to make it). There's no real practical benefit, at least in the forseeable future, nuclear weapons are more than capable of destroying anything we could want destroyed.

 

Of course nuclear weapons aren't even that realistic for small organizations. It's much harder to design a working one than you might think, as we can see from the complete failures of Iran and North Korea. More importantly, production of one requires a ton of infrastructure that a small terrorist group isn't going to have (kind of contradicts the idea of being small and hidden).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( I would never ever want nanotechnology to occur. I mean yes, the reward would be bountyfull but think of the result if an error occurred. Here is a thought. Say they inject nanobots into people to rebuild lost cells and help fight off disease's. The nanobots also repair damaged genes and demolecularize cancer cells. However an error occurs and the nanobots begin demolecularizing healthy cells. eventually you have nanobots which are in everyone damaging thier genes and creating havok.This is an actual theory known as the mud theory (I might be spelling it wrong). Also if robots rebelled against humans, humans would have a chance to fight back if we were completly biotic. however when you put the enemy in you, the nanobots can in affect do whatever they want to you and you can do nothing about it. they could even control your body if they wanted to. All in all, i do not fancy nanobots because to much interdependence leads to dependence and dependence on another entity is not good.

 

nope wont work, just put that program in that doesnt allow any robots to hurt humans in anyway. its like robot theory law or whatever.

any way robots cant rebel unless someone purposfully puts a progeam into the robots that make them rebel.

like in irobot, but that was a crap film anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope wont work, just put that program in that doesnt allow any robots to hurt humans in anyway. its like robot theory law or whatever.

any way robots cant rebel unless someone purposfully puts a progeam into the robots that make them rebel.

like in irobot, but that was a crap film anyway

 

Hm... now this sounds like a famliar argument. Where have I heard this before? Oh, right:

 

Of course so are any ideas of "technology rebelling against humans". Even if somehow we manage to create true artificial intelligence, proper programming limitations and built-in self-destruct orders will end the revolution very quickly. The highly unlikely chain of events that could produce any kind of rebellion is once again, pure science fiction.

 

 

 

And the term you're looking for is the Three Laws of Robotics. Go read your classic science fiction and forget that abomination of a movie ever existed. But that's mostly irrelevant, you'd need to develop true artificial intelligence (and then it wouldn't really be a robot anymore) before you can work with that kind of un-specific law. But those laws aren't too realistic anyway, by the time you have artificial intelligence sophisticated enough to use them, you have artificial intelligence sophisticated enough to find the loopholes (again, read the books).

 

The more realistic situation is simply a hardwired override/shutdown system. Hit the kill switch and the problem robot is dealt with, no moral dillemas or vague guidelines required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Either an urban sprawl of the matrix :glare:

 

But if you think about it the matrix wouldn't be far fetched at all in 1000 years if anything it would be old technology (Like Ninjas :ph34r: ),as far as I know someone has had their hand modified (right word?) to include wires to control a lamp (true) and as soon as the human race knows enough about anatomy they could fairly easily make a computer that responds to electrical impulses sent down the spinal cord,It would probably be the only chance of survival mankind has other than finding resources on other planets,Think about it how much food do you need if you dont move at all,of course this would cause the human race to be small and sort of shriveled but that'd be he price ofsurvival,and if everyone was in one MASSIVE building with tiny chamber things the rest of the world could be used for agiculture to feed the people,and HUGE wind farms to power the "matrix" That would also eliminate the need for coal,gas,oil,diamonds etc. ,but that would create a larger problem of the people needed to maintain the "matrix" and them possibly shutting down the whole system and effectivly sending the human race back thousands of years of population growth and also possibly destroying the human race completly because of one persons greed.

 

 

And thats just ONE scenario of what the human race could be in 1000 years time

If you read all that have a cookie *holds out cookies*

 

Or it could be just like futurama 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...