Futuretimeline.net

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What do people think of this? My guess he/she is way too optimistic about nanotech and the "Singularity". He (it has to bew a he) predicts that, among other things, humanity will spend most of its time in "godlike" VR environments. He does predict vast ecological catastrophe , huge refugee flows and an enormous human die off within this century but this seemingly won't impede technological progress.

It does make for great escapist reading though.



http://futuretimeline.net/index.htm

[AnonymousOne]

He (it has to bew a he)

Wait, what? How do you know that to be the case?

[Aspiring Humanist]

2030-2039
By now, marriage in the West has been reduced to the status of a lifestyle choice enjoyed by a minority, rather than an essential institution of society. This trend, which began in the 1980s, has seen the married population shrink from almost 50% of adults in 2009, to just 41% now.*



im ok with this


2082

The USA cedes territory to Mexico

For over two centuries, the United States effectively controlled the entire North American continent. Its dominance throughout this time was unquestioned.

During the late 21st century, however, its territorial integrity was being challenged once again. By the early 2080s, four of its fifty states had been ceded to Mexico.*

What led to this astonishing development?

I don't think this guy/girl has ever been in America before...

[Meridian]

The "Turing test" produces competition among creators of glorified recording/playback machines. "AI" is a complete misnomer.

That's not all there is to language, or else a parrot would be communicating truly when it simply repeats what you have thought it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think this guy/girl has ever been in America before...

What does that have to do with whether or not the US ends up ceding territory to it's neighbours? Remember that this isn't the US of today ceding territory, but a US that has gone through nearly a century of decline, starting about now I would guess.

[Ingraham Effingham]

molecular teleportation in 2017?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Wait, what? How do you know that to be the case?

I could be wrong about this and perhaps I'm being a bit "essentialist" but the site seems focused purely on technological progress, mostly but not entirely a "guy thing". There is an article floating around online, "Why Chicks Don't Dig the Singularity". Having said this I do find this interesting in many ways but he or she is leaving out so much.

[CommunityBeliever]

When does this predict world socialism will come about? To me that is really the essential factor, because capitalism is fucked.


A global financial downturn emerged from 2007 - caused by the excesses of capitalism, a sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, along with soaring debt levels. This led to a wrenching restructuring of many social and political systems, but failed to address the growing divides between rich and poor.


A new set of crises would emerge in the 2020s. As oil demand began to exceed supply, full-scale conflict erupted in the Middle East. At the same time, the effects of climate change were beginning to have a major impact on worldwide food and water supplies. Growing instability led to a number of resource wars. Even the Arctic became a battleground as nations sought to claim the last remaining oil deposits.


Despite this, conflict was brewing around much of the world. Africa, Asia and other regions were suffering mightily due to food shortages and a growing influx of refugees affected by climate change, resource wars and political instability.So I presume world socialism will come out in the first half of the 21th century with all of these crises. I generally agree with that. Then we will be capable of a lot of vast projects such as colonising Mars.

We also got to remember that the future isn't some set thing, we can direct policy ourselves in the future socialist society to make our own future.

[Nox]

I stopped reading at the year 2050

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

molecular teleportation in 2017?

Simple molecules, like water or carbon dioxide. We've already done it with single atoms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm).

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

its pretty neat

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I could be wrong about this and perhaps I'm being a bit "essentialist" but the site seems focused purely on technological progress, mostly but not entirely a "guy thing". There is an article floating around online, "Why Chicks Don't Dig the Singularity". Having said this I do find this interesting in many ways but he or she is leaving out so much.

With a title like that I couldn't say I was too optimistic, so I Googled it up and THIS (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/19/joe-quirk-author-singularity-sociobiology-sex/) was the first result:


JQ: Right. So guy geeks are always talking about how you can connect to more people and form more networks with people you never met. And my research tells me women's brains are just more interested in face reading and voice reading and reading all the messages you get beneath the words. Guys tend to concentrate more on the abstract ideas behind the words. So email is unfulfilling for most women. They want to get together at lunch with their friends and make eye contact and stand way too close to each other.

This sort of argument basically boils down to half-remembered "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" pop-psychology bullshit. This sort of shit is socially inculcated pretty from birth. To see how deep it goes, I invite you to look at children's toys and how gendered they are, and how that genderisation is biased in favour of boys. After all, there is no reason why construction toys should not appeal equally to boys and girls, but they are overwhelmingly marketed to boys.

Although I will agree that generally the transhumanist and Singularitarian movements need more of a female presence, I think this is a general social problem facing a lot of movements and interest groups. The skeptical and atheist community does better, but even then there are strenous internal arguments about the best ways to move forward.

It's not just women either. Considering the fucking awful state of public education in some parts of the world, especially the US, I really think transhumanists and Singularitarians should do more on the way of public outreach and education. In this manner I believe that the atheist/skeptic and transhumanist/Singularitarian movements are natural allies.


JQ: Exactly! It was stuff like, "You can wear body suits." He was talking about tactile things and about how people can caress each other from far away. And it was so funny. It's too bad this wasn't filmed, because Moira Gunn's face was getting more and more skeptical, the more he kept talking. She kept saying things like, "Well, what about intimacy? You know, what about actual interacting with a real human being?" And Kurzweil wasn't picking up on what she was talking about. You could tell he enjoys the subject, but he gave a long-winded technical explanation for how to get off. And she was talking about sex as a medium for connecting to another person's soul. So right there, you're seeing this divergence between men's priorities and women's priorities. My wife doesn't care about the Singularity. When I talk about it, it doesn't resonate for her. It doesn't sound exciting to be able to put a machine inside your brain or something like that.

This is another thing, which I've probably been guilty of myself more than once - transhumanists and Singularitarians love to take and idea and run with it. When this comes to the lifestyle choices that technology can potentially offer people, the resulting strangeness can be off-putting.

I don't think a negative reaction to strangeness is concentrated in either gender. I think it has a lot more to do with one's worldview. Conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) seem to overwhelmingly react negatively to transhumanism and similar notions, although since they have trouble with fellow human beings who don't fit into their narrow definitions this is hardly surprising.

[OhYesIdid]

22,000 AD - The Chernobyl disaster site becomes fully safe (http://futuretimeline.net/beyond.htm#chernobyl)
lol


2100 - Nomadic floating cities are roaming the oceans (http://futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/2100-2149.htm#floating-cities)

2120 - Mind uploading enters mainstream society (http://futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/2100-2149.htm#minduploading)

2130 - Large-scale civilian settlement of the Moon is underway (http://futuretimeline.net/22ndcentury/2100-2149.htm#civilians-moon)


By the middle of the 4th millenium, however, a particle accelerator covering the entire perimeter of our solar system has been constructed.
[...]

Under the direction of a Godlike superintelligence, vast swarms of automated, self-replicating ships are building it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) - using material from the asteroid field, Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.
[...]


The future looks awesome

[CommunityBeliever]

This timeline is not based upon scientific analysis and it is mostly fictional. It does not account for the transition from the capitalism to socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By the way, there is a poll on the front page of the site concerning the legalisation of marijuana. I hope you potheads voted appropriately, I know I did. :)


The problem I have with this timeline though is that it doesn't come from a communist viewpoint. It doesn't state when world socialism will emerge as I mentioned before.

I'm not a big fan of orthodoxy, so the lack of appropriate political buzzwords doesn't bother me so much.

I would be amused to hear the author(s) explain how capitalism survives the invention of matter replication devices in 2190, since they later mention corporations or something like that if I remember correctly.

[CommunityBeliever]

I would be amused to hear the author(s) explain how capitalism survives the invention of matter replication devices in 2190, since they later mention corporations or something like that if I remember correctly.

Good point, however, I maintain that capitalism will be put to an end long before that, either by a communist revolution or by destroying civilisation. Socialism or barbary.


I'm not a big fan of orthodoxy, so the lack of appropriate political buzzwords doesn't bother me so much.

Instead of taking the communist viewpoint this article leads into overly-optimistic sci-fi escapism that is all too common in the Singularity movement. If instead we grounded it in communism then it will be remind us that we must immediately crush the class enemy.

[CommunityBeliever]

For example, there could be two different timelines, one that is based upon what will happen if people sit around and let the capitalists destroy civilisation and one that is based upon what will happen if we build world socialism, that would be superior I think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good point, however, I maintain that capitalism will be put to an end long before that, either by a communist revolution or by destroying civilisation. Socialism or barbary.

This sounds more like millenarianism than a coherent political ideology to me, to be frank.


Instead of taking the communist viewpoint this article leads into overly-optimistic sci-fi escapism that is all too common in the Singularity movement. If instead we grounded it in communism then it will be remind us that we must immediately crush the class enemy.

Please, as if there haven't been more writers than fighters in the various communist movements and countless little parties.

Rigid adherence to a particular ideology is a recipe for failure. Be zetetic - the answers to our questions are out there in the real world.

[CommunityBeliever]

This sounds more like millenarianism than a coherent political ideology to me, to be frank.No, what this is, is devout anti-capitalism and a rejection of all bourgeoisie elements.


Rigid adherence to a particular ideology is a recipe for failure. Be zetetic - the answers to our questions are out there in the real world. Daydreaming of a science-fiction world is also a recipe for failure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, what this is, is devout anti-capitalism and a rejection of all bourgeoisie elements.

"Devout"? Are you purposefully using such counter-productive language?


Daydreaming of a science-fiction world is also a recipe for failure.

So... encourage transhumanists and Singularitarians to advocate and support actual research, publicly funded with the results available to all.

[CommunityBeliever]

"Devout"? Are you purposefully using such counter-productive language?Sorry. I am just looking for a term to describe my strong level of devotion to communist revolution, that I mostly took on quite recently.


So... encourage transhumanists and Singularitarians to advocate and support actual research, publicly funded with the results available to all. Results available in all? In capitalism? Please.

Encourage them to build socialism.

[OhYesIdid]

Daydreaming of a science-fiction world is also a recipe for failure.

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
I for one, choose to dream this was said by a good and revolutionary woman.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sorry. I am just looking for a term to describe my strong level of devotion to communist revolution, that I mostly took on quite recently.

Somehow that doesn't reassure me.


Results available in all? In capitalism? Please.

It's more likely than you think. Scientists have to share data to some degree at least, or they would never get anything done. I know that capitalism can have a negative effect on the scientific process, but those effects are known to scientists and can be mitigated. To say otherwise is, in my estimation, to betray a Manichaean worldview unbecoming of someone who claims to understand something as complex as the socioeconomics of the capitalist price system.


Encourage them to build socialism.

What, sell them a paper?

[CommunityBeliever]

I know that capitalism can have a negative effect on the scientific process

It has a HUGE negative effect on the scientific process.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Capitalism determines the direction of scientific research and technological development. How many technologies have been abandoned because they did not make profit for someone?

Scientists may very well understand the constraints capitalism places on their work, but ts inpossible to jump out of the system. Research needs funding, peer review etc.This is done within communities which both go in apecific directions and which has certain set assumptions.

As far as the "Singularity" goes, doesn't this remove human agency? Don't worry, a giant all powerful AI will save us by 2050 or so. Wasn't there a reason Time Magazine featured Kurweil a few months ago?

Charles Stross, a SF writer , author of Accerarando, which helpede popularize the Singularity, recently came out against it.

And there's this

http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/07/singular_sensations.html

Having said all this, I do admit I am intrigued by this ttpe of futurist thinking, i am playing devil's advocate here.

[OhYesIdid]

Oh, come on. We must seek to better individuals' lives, not merge them! The Hive Mind is an idea that would come about in the latter stages of the Singularity, and even then only to those who want to try.

[punisa]

I hate the last entry :(

Beyond 10100
The dark era of the universe* (http://futuretimeline.net/beyond.htm#ref24)
The last remaining black hole has evaporated.
From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.
The universe continues to expand forever... but is essentially dead.

[AnonymousOne]

I hate the last entry :(

Beyond 10100
The dark era of the universe* (http://futuretimeline.net/beyond.htm#ref24)
The last remaining black hole has evaporated.
From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.
The universe continues to expand forever... but is essentially dead.

http://news.discovery.com/space/heat-death-of-the-universe.html


It's the kind of thought that would drive poor Sarah Boyle to even greater depths of despair. But I'd encourage Sarah to take comfort in this thought: there's really no such thing as perfect thermal equilibrium. Even when the cosmos has been reduced to empty space, there will still be tiny fluctuations from time to time -- and out of those fluctuations could very well spring another baby universe.

:)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There may be more where this one comes from.....


The idea that other universes - as well as our own - lie within "bubbles" of space and time has received a boost.
Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that several of these "bubble universes" may have left marks on our own.
This "multiverse" idea is popular in modern physics, but experimental tests have been hard to come by.
The preliminary work, to be published in Physical Review D (http://prd.aps.org/accepted/D/83079Q32M1c1810f37bf2af793911a2083788d205), will be firmed up using data from the Planck telescope.
For now, the team has worked with seven years' worth of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measures in minute detail the cosmic microwave background (CMB) - the faint glow left from our Universe's formation.
'Mind-blowing' The theory that invokes these bubble universes - a theory formally called "eternal inflation" - holds that such universes are popping into and out of existence and colliding all the time, with the space between them rapidly expanding - meaning that they are forever out of reach of one another.
But Hiranya Peiris, a cosmologist at University College London, and her colleagues have now worked out that when these universes are created adjacent to our own, they may leave a characteristic pattern in the CMB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387


(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancers_at_the_End_of_Time


There's a Micheal Moorcock story about this.

[Hexen]

http://www.paleofuture.com/

Point is we don't know jack shit how the future is going to be like as history has shown here.

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.paleofuture.com/

Point is we don't know jack shit how the future is going to be like as history has shown here.

And how does that prove your point at all? :confused:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Paleofuture.net seems to be more a spoof on advertising rather than predictionsof the future.Some of the predictions they mentioned, including teleconferencing, took place.

We cannot know what the future will be like but its interesting, fun, and at times very useful to speculate.That's why there is a field of futurism.

[Q]

2084

Androids are entering law enforcement

Fully autonomous mobile robots with human-like features and expressions are being deployed in many cities now.* These androids are highly intelligent - able to operate in almost any environment and dealing with a range of duties. In addition to their powerful sensory and communication abilities, they have access to bank accounts, tax, travel, shopping and criminal records, allowing them to instantly identify people on the street.

The presence of these machines is freeing-up a tremendous amount of time for human police officers.

They are also being used in crowd control and riot situations. With their superhuman strength and speed, a single android is highly intimidating and can easily take on dozens of people if necessary. Special controls are featured in their programming, however, to prevent the use of excessive force.*

http://futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/images/police-robot-future.jpg

We better get our act together and overthrow capitalism before that happens.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We better get our act together and overthrow capitalism before that happens.

You know, as impressive as the high-tech equipment of the US armed forces is, they haven't caused anywhere near as much mayhem as the AK-47. I haven't been able to find figures, but a cheap, reliable, easily mass-produced weapon is going to find a lot more customers than the more fancy toys.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Okay, what would a communist version of the 2084 model android above be like? Maybe simplified, relatively low tech, but easy to use and easily accessible to the masses.

[CommunityBeliever]

In capitalism the "2084 model android" would be used to police the masses, in communism it would work for them, probably by providing services.

[Q]

You know, as impressive as the high-tech equipment of the US armed forces is, they haven't caused anywhere near as much mayhem as the AK-47. I haven't been able to find figures, but a cheap, reliable, easily mass-produced weapon is going to find a lot more customers than the more fancy toys.

So, what about an army of androids with AK-47's? Or an army of bullet-proof androids?

Of course you can destroy everything, but fighting mass produced androids would make our task that much more problematic, even if we organise on a mass scale. Androids don't get tired, don't have families, don't have moral restrictions. They are the ideal guardians of capitalist power.

[AnonymousOne]

So, what about an army of androids with AK-47's? Or an army of bullet-proof androids?

Of course you can destroy everything, but fighting mass produced androids would make our task that much more problematic, even if we organise on a mass scale. Androids don't get tired, don't have families, don't have moral restrictions. They are the ideal guardians of capitalist power.

Plus unlike other guardians of the State, they don't defect. It'd be like the Russian Revolution, except the army stays loyal to Nicholas. :unsure:

[CommunityBeliever]

Of course you can destroy everything, but fighting mass produced androids would make our task that much more problematic, even if we organise on a mass scale. Androids don't get tired, don't have families, don't have moral restrictions. They are the ideal guardians of capitalist power. Capitalism is a defective system that is no where near being able to mass produce an intelligent android army.

This is fortunate for us, a world where the capitalist elite has completely obedient protectors would be terrible. But we don't have to do much work to oppose this because the capitalist system already is too inefficient to bring about such a future.

[Q]

Capitalism is a defective system that is no where near being able to mass produce an intelligent android army.

What makes you say that? Didn't capitalism already produce silicon valley and mass produced home computers? Doesn't it produce ever more advanced robots n Japan and other places (that, granted, still have some way to go)? Doesn't capitalism respect Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law)?

I think your statement is more based on hope than on what is actually happening within capitalism.

[AnonymousOne]

Capitalism is a defective system that is no where near being able to mass produce an intelligent android army.

Tell that to the trade federation:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EB-cXx2c9dI/S_V1u2dJyGI/AAAAAAAACjU/Z9UYjftla8c/s400/250px-BattleDroidArmy.jpg

But no in all seriousness, Capitalism can definitely do it. Look at the huge production that occurred during the Second World War.

[CommunityBeliever]

Didn't capitalism already produce silicon valley and mass produced home computers?

Capitalism has produced computers for 5% of the world population.


Doesn't it produce ever more advanced robots n Japan and other places (that, granted, still have some way to go)?

There are limitations present in the Japanese conditions.


Doesn't capitalism respect Moore's Law (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law)?Moore's law as we knew it is already starting to break down. We are no longer getting faster cores, we are getting more cores. Modern software has to be rewritten in a multi-threaded and multi-processor manner to take advantage of these new gains.

[CommunityBeliever]

Tell that to the trade federation

I can definitely imagine the capitalists producing a robot army in a *fictional universe*. In the real world capitalism is not sustaining real progress it is just causing destruction and we are in the middle of a global financial meltdown that will spell the end of the system long before anything like this can happen.

[AnonymousOne]

WTF? Capitalism has failed to meet most peoples basic needs such as food, water, and health care, let alone provide them computers.

Yes, all that shows is that Capitalism doesn't *gasp* care about people. It doesn't mean that Capitalism can't be used to mass produce items.




A few people have computers, but computers themselves arose out of state-funding not "free-market innovation" and where is the state funding now?

By, "a few people" you mean a billion people right? http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=703807 That's what the number was in 2008.

Computers and the internet are the legacy of state funding, but a lot of it has also been increases by researchers in both public and private sector in efficency.

We've gone from:

http://marlondesisto.blinkweb.com/uploads.00098929/00227187.jpg

to

http://www.gadget-enews.com/images/Lexar%20Announces%20Monster-Sized%20128GB%20SD-Card_0.jpg

[CommunityBeliever]

By, "a few people" you mean a billion people right? http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=703807 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=703807) That's what the number was in 2008.

As of 2011, 5% of the world population (365 million people) possess computers. At the same time there is at least a billion computers installed. This indicates that computers are not evenly distributed in capitalism.


Computers and the internet are the legacy of state funding, but a lot of it has also been increases by researchers in both public and private sector in efficency. There has also been a great deal lost to history.


We've gone from:

This is thanks to state funding. The transference of funds from important R&D projects to imperialist wars that has occurred recently is a deterrent to progress.

[AnonymousOne]

Fun fact: 365 million people have computers well half of the people haven't seen a telephone. Since as you stated there is ~1000 million computers in the use and only 365 million people have them, I think that says something about how well capitalism does at distributing things.

Uh, yeah I agree with you Capitalism sucks. That's why I'm on this forum. But that wasn't my point, Capitalism sucks at distribution but they still can build the damn things.




Oh my gosh! Look at the legacy of state-funding! Where is our precious state funding now though?

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Corporations?



If only we still had funding for building computers rather then imperialist wars. I think we could achieve this by overthrowing capitalism with a revolution. What do you think?

Well, err, yes of course we could do that by overthrowing capitalism. I'm fairly certain both Q and I are in favor of overthowing Capitalism.

All we were saying is that you underestimate the ability of the bourgeoise to engage in mass production. Not to mention technological process is developed independent of the economic system, while research from the state helps that's not all there is to it. In fact, the first programmable machine was built not by a government or state but by a member of the bourgeoise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom

[Metacomet]

I just want to hang on long enough to either

A. Be frozen.

B. get some sort of longevity treatment.

I'm 23 now. I got a shot.

[ellipsis]

The future looks like it sucks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I just want to hang on long enough to either

A. Be frozen.

B. get some sort of longevity treatment.

I'm 23 now. I got a shot.

I believe we've all got a shot in being around during when longevity programs are being produced. Hell, we may just very likely be around when immortality is figured out. Well....except for Red Dave that is. :tt2:

Just kidding Dave, just kidding. :P

[piet11111]

Okay, what would a communist version of the 2084 model android above be like? Maybe simplified, relatively low tech, but easy to use and easily accessible to the masses.

Obviously forklifts. :tt1:

[AnonymousOne]

Obviously forklifts. :tt1:

The Savior of the People

k3l660yNfa4

[CommunityBeliever]

All we were saying is that you underestimate the ability of the bourgeoise to engage in mass production.

You may overestimate the ability of capitalism to engage in mass production and in technological progress.


Not to mention technological process is developed independent of the economic system, while research from the state helps that's not all there is to it.The economic system is a considerable factor in technological progress. The R&D/GDP value is a fairly good indicator of the committment to technological progress, and in the U.S that was 2.62%.

However, the R&D expenditures alone do not determine technological progress. A variety of other factors must be considered. First of all, the expenditures have to be directed towards something that will prove fruitful.

Additionally, secrecy can result in wasteful overlap. One example is the Manhattan project which was incredibly secretive. Barbed wire was used to secure the scientist's base in Los Alamos and all contact with the outside world was examined. Another example is closed source software programs which restrict access to the source code information to a small group.

[Q]

WTF? Capitalism has failed to meet most peoples basic needs such as food, water, and health care, let alone provide them computers.
Capitalism is characterised with combined and uneven development. For example, I was recently told by an NGO aid worker that 3G connections are actually quite common in Darfur. Yet we all know their access to fresh water and other elementary life products.


A few people have computers...
The point I and AnonymousOne are making is that only a few people (namely the elite) have to get their hands on such androids (and other powerenforcing technology) to maintain their power. The argument you make that only a small minority on the planet have computers, is irrelevant to this point.


Moore's law as we knew it is already starting to break down.
This has been repeated ad nauseam for decades, yet it still lives strong. It also doesn't mention speed, but is the observation that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The fact that CPU's are getting more cores is merely another form of the same thing.

[AnonymousOne]

You may overestimate the ability of capitalism to engage in mass production and in technological progress.

I don't think so, trillions of dollars worth of material are produced every year. Not to mention, in the case of technology where a lot of money is spent on Research and Devlopment. DARPA, anyone?




The economic system is a considerable factor in technological progress. The R&D/GDP value is a fairly good indicator of the committment to technological progress, and in the U.S that was 2.62%.

However, the R&D expenditures alone do not determine technological progress. A variety of other factors must be considered. First of all, the expenditures have to be directed towards something that will prove fruitful.

Not entirely the case, many DARPA projects haven't been succesful but have still been funded. If you look at where that 2.62% is targetted, it's going after defense projects largely.




Additionally, secrecy can result in wasteful overlap. One example is the Manhattan project which was incredibly secretive. Barbed wire was used to secure the scientist's base in Los Alamos and all contact with the outside world was examined.

I'm sorry, how is that wasteful overlap? Or are you saying that barbed wire will prevent the mass production of androids?




Another example is closed source software programs which restrict access to the source code information to a small group.

Yes, I know but that doesn't prevent the software from getting published/completed. I agree with you open source projects are more fruitful and better, I loved "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", but that doesn't mean Microsoft is unable to publish Word every other year.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I agree that Moore's Law still holds and technology is continuing to develop, at least more or less along lines profitable to the bourgeois but aren't we bound to run up against environmental constraints, sooner rather than later? That's the main issue I've had with futuretimeline.net. Towards the middle/end of this century there will be 100s of millions of environmental refugees, mass human die offs but "singularity" type technology and geo engineering projects will continue to develop. If I remember they have a Europe-Africa bridge and a space elevator built during the worst of the crisis. Is this really plausible?

[Q]

I agree that Moore's Law still holds and technology is continuing to develop, at least more or less along lines profitable to the bourgeois but aren't we bound to run up against environmental constraints, sooner rather than later? That's the main issue I've had with futuretimeline.net. Towards the middle/end of this century there will be 100s of millions of environmental refugees, mass human die offs but "singularity" type technology and geo engineering projects will continue to develop. If I remember they have a Europe-Africa bridge and a space elevator built during the worst of the crisis. Is this really plausible?

A lot of what is on there is really just the dreamt up line of events of one particular individual (or maybe a group). But lots of stuff can be expected. I mean, will androids really look like those of I, Robot? Who knows. But they will happen. I mean, we already see the first steps in the Reaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper) line of aircraft. Although these are not yet fully autonomous.

I'm sure the climate change will create new technological innovations in themselves. But the climate problems will happen, unless we find a way to capture or neutralise the massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere already. By the way, I don't see a huge contradiction between a Europe-Africa bridge and fighting climate change.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalism is characterised with combined and uneven development. For example, I was recently told by an NGO aid worker that 3G connections are actually quite common in Darfur. Yet we all know their access to fresh water and other elementary life products.

As of 2007, 24% of the Darfur population lacks access to clean water resources; 10% of the population of Sudan have Internet access.


This has been repeated ad nauseam for decades, yet it still lives strong. It also doesn't mention speed, but is the observation that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The fact that CPU's are getting more cores is merely another form of the same thing.

Moore's law is not a valuable model if it fails to account for changing conditions. Due to the non-proliferation of concurrent programming techniques such as software transactional memory and the actor model computing is not increasing in performance in most modern systems.


The point I and AnonymousOne are making is that only a few people (namely the elite) have to get their hands on such androids (and other powerenforcing technology) to maintain their power.

The deterrents to technological progress present in the capitalist system reduce the probability that this will occur.


But they will happen

Due to our imperfect knowledge of future conditions, accuracy is best achieved with a probabilistic model.

There may be (> 90%) probability that event will occur, however, we cannot say definitively that it "will happen."


I'm sorry, how is that wasteful overlap? Or are you saying that barbed wire will prevent the mass production of androids?

Wasteful overlap: the reproduction of the same research in various locations due to artificial limitations placed on communication.

This applies to the development of nuclear weapons. They were developed independently in multiple locations due to secrecy. Additionally, this applies to closed-source software. Similar source code is developed in multiple locations due to secrecy. Wasteful overlap is one detterent to scientific progress present in current human society.


That's the main issue I've had with futuretimeline.net.

This timeline is fiction. Don't treat it as anything else.

It is not grounded in scientific analysis and it doesn't account for the transition to world socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree that Moore's Law still holds and technology is continuing to develop, at least more or less along lines profitable to the bourgeois but aren't we bound to run up against environmental constraints, sooner rather than later? That's the main issue I've had with futuretimeline.net. Towards the middle/end of this century there will be 100s of millions of environmental refugees, mass human die offs but "singularity" type technology and geo engineering projects will continue to develop. If I remember they have a Europe-Africa bridge and a space elevator built during the worst of the crisis. Is this really plausible?

What bothers me is that the site talks about renewables and fusion and so on, but does not mention nuclear fission as a power source at all. Does the author of the site really think that there are no more advances to be made in the field of fission-based power generation?

The thing is, if we were to switch to an energy economy based entirely on nuclear and renewables, then we could mitigate the worst effects of climate change.