Life Which of these things will happen in the next fifty years? - Page 4

**Rain Man** · 11-25-2014, 09:45 PM

Poll forthcoming, but it'll take a few minutes. I would suggest that you use this time productively by learning the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody, or perhaps learning some key Chinese tourist phrases

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 10:12 AM

Out of 49 votes so far, here are the things that a majority think will happen:

Chiefs win a Super Bowl
Massive earthquake somewhere in the U.S.
Humans set foot on Mars
Small-scale radiation dirty bomb set off
U.S. is no longer the most powerful nation

These are the things that less than 10% of people think will happen:

Anti-gravity brought into everyday use
Evidence of pre-Ice Age civilization
Major meteor strike kills 1 million+ people
Peaceful Arab-Isreali solution
Cessation of Islamic extremism and terrorism
Poverty is eliminated in the U.S. based on quality of life
Race is no longer an issue in the U.S.
House or Senate becomes majority female
Worlds ends according to holy predictions
Time travel to the future
Time travel to the past
U.S. splits into two or more countries

The biggest thing I draw from this is a pessimism that we can resolve issues of social concern, both internal to the U.S. and also external. What does that mean? Does it mean that we should redouble our efforts to solve them? Give up on them? Just work to keep them from getting worse? Or does it mean that they're not important in the big picture?

While it doesn't show up in my summary above, I also scan the full list and see some optimism about science. It appears that people are reasonably optimistic that science can make notable leaps forward even if mankind can't solve its social problems.

Imon Yourside · 11-26-2014, 10:15 AM

Cure for cancer never as it already exists and is hidden, too much money to be made from it. Peace? no just can't happen governments won't allow that, they have to keep us busy. Chiefs win the big bowl? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm really reaching on that one, yet i remain optimistic

**Dave Lane** · 11-26-2014, 10:17 AM

50 years is too short. Almost none of this will happen. Maybe we visit Mars and maybe someone hits 130. Thats about it. 50 years ago was 1964. Advances since then have been very good but almost in an unpredictable way. The internet would have been WTF? in 1964.

Imon Yourside · 11-26-2014, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

50 years is too short. Almost none of this will happen. Maybe we visit Mars and maybe someone hits 130. Thats about it. 50 years ago was 1964. Advances since then have been very good but almost in an unpredictable way. The internet would have been WTF? in 1964.

Al Gore came along so the internet made it's fasttrack ways into our lives. WHat a guy!

**Dave Lane** · 11-26-2014, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod

I voted for everything except the Chiefs winning a Super Bowl.

Well you can't very well vote for things that are impossible.

**Rausch** · 11-26-2014, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The biggest thing I draw from this is a pessimism that we can resolve issues of social concern, both internal to the U.S. and also external. What does that mean? Does it mean that we should redouble our efforts to solve them? Give up on them? Just work to keep them from getting worse? Or does it mean that they're not important in the big picture?

While I voted for science/medicine/technology I thought was possible in the next 50 years I seriously doubt we go that long without a third world war.

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 02:26 PM

So let's go down the list. Right now, 40% think we'll have a human celebrating their 130th birthday in the next 50 years.

I voted yes. I think we've had people hit 120, so it's not that much of a stretch. However, I've also heard that life expectancy may be going down in the U.S. because of bad diets and no exercise. So it may be a small window in the short term where we have people who lived without fast food and get modern medicine, assuming no revolutionary breakthroughs.

But I voted yes primarily because I think some scientist somewhere will figure out how to slow down our cellular degeneration. I think there will be a revolutionary breakthrough. It won't help everybody, but if you're the type who lives to 100 it'll help you keep going.

Of course, the other wildcard is quality of life in China. If they continue to make strides forward, they may have big life expectancy boosts, and that doubles the pool of people who might make it to 130.

The interesting sidebar to this issue is affording to live that long. A 130 year-old person today would have likely retired shortly after World War II. That's a long time to stretch your savings. So if we can live longer, are we working longer to afford it? That's a different question in my mind. You're trying to keep people vital from ages 75 to 90 or so, as opposed to stretching out the 105 year old another 25 years.

Graystoke · 11-26-2014, 02:38 PM

No Sex-Bot option?

**ptlyon** · 11-26-2014, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graystoke

No Sex-Bot option?

Those have already been created. They're called vacuum cleaners.

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graystoke

No Sex-Bot option?

It barely missed the cut. I assumed that it was a given.

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 04:21 PM

Mile-high skyscraper.

I agreed with cdcox on this, and voted no, though for a somewhat different reason.

Simply put, I don't think a building that large is necessary in any sense. The current tallest buildings are being built solely as a tourism attraction; it's not that there's a need to build that high. I think the cost would be very high and there are better ways to invest in a tourism infrastructure.

I think humans COULD build a building that tall, but I don't think anyone will want to, and I don't think businesses would want to be in the building. Frankly, it would be inconvenient if you were on an upper floor, not to mention a host of safety and security concerns.

**cdcox** · 11-26-2014, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

So let's go down the list. Right now, 40% think we'll have a human celebrating their 130th birthday in the next 50 years.

I voted yes. I think we've had people hit 120, so it's not that much of a stretch. However, I've also heard that life expectancy may be going down in the U.S. because of bad diets and no exercise. So it may be a small window in the short term where we have people who lived without fast food and get modern medicine, assuming no revolutionary breakthroughs.

But I voted yes primarily because I think some scientist somewhere will figure out how to slow down our cellular degeneration. I think there will be a revolutionary breakthrough. It won't help everybody, but if you're the type who lives to 100 it'll help you keep going.

Of course, the other wildcard is quality of life in China. If they continue to make strides forward, they may have big life expectancy boosts, and that doubles the pool of people who might make it to 130.

The interesting sidebar to this issue is affording to live that long. A 130 year-old person today would have likely retired shortly after World War II. That's a long time to stretch your savings. So if we can live longer, are we working longer to afford it? That's a different question in my mind. You're trying to keep people vital from ages 75 to 90 or so, as opposed to stretching out the 105 year old another 25 years.

I think we will soon be able to slow down degradation due to aging but it may not help folks who are already way old to live longer. Since the folks to make it to 130 must already be 80, I don't think this will happen.

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

I think we will soon be able to slow down degradation due to aging but it may not help folks who are already way old to live longer. Since the folks to make it to 130 must already be 80, I don't think this will happen.

Admittedly, it's a tough one.

Apparently the oldest living person right now is 116 years old. But I bet the next fourteen years is hard to pull off.

**Rain Man** · 11-26-2014, 05:47 PM

Item 3: A war producing 20 million deaths.

I voted no on this one.

To produce 20 million deaths, I think you have to have two big combatants going all out and throwing haymakers at each other. Unless someone launches nukes, we're talking about a sustained war that involves divisions and lots of people in uniforms and tanks and planes.

First, I think that type of war is going out of style. It's expensive and generally unpopular. It's better to find some angry minority group and arm them, or do cyberwar on their infrastructure, or stuff like that. I don't think anybody wants to get into a big massive land war these days.

Second, there aren't a lot of candidates for a war that produces 20 million casualties. At that scale, I can probably name the only real candidates:

India vs. Pakistan
Russia versus Ukraine or other former Soviet Republic
Russia versus China
Russia versus NATO
Iran versus somebody, but I don't know who. Maybe whatever Iraq becomes.

That said, there are other possibilities, such as:

Israel gets pushed to the wall and nukes most of the surrounding countries
Maybe Nigeria or Burma or Ethiopia gets into a really protracted fight against a neighbor.

The most likely probability would be some very long and protracted civil war in some big third-world country that goes on for 20 years and kills a bunch of people each year. But it would take a really big country to lose 20 million internally. Maybe Nigeria or Vietnam or Mexico with the drug wars. But there aren't that many countries that could lose 20 million without something unprecedented happening.

I think it's either a major nuclear war, which I think is unlikely, or a protracted civil war, which isn't likely to happen in a big enough country to produce that many casualties.

ModSocks · 11-26-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptlyon

Those have already been created. They're called vacuum cleaners.

Im intrigued. Tell me more.

View Poll Results: Which of these will happen within 50 years? Check all that apply.
A human celebrates his or her 130th birthday	37	29.13%
A mile-high skyscraper is built somewhere in the world	14	11.02%
A single war produces more than 20 million deaths	36	28.35%
A third party holds the US Presidency	36	28.35%
A U.S. president is assassinated	52	40.94%
Anti-gravity is brought into everyday use	10	7.87%
Artificial intelligence routinely conducts media interviews	23	18.11%
At least one dinosaur will be alive	10	7.87%
At least one human will have their brain transplanted into a cloned version of their own body.	17	13.39%
Brick and mortar stores will cease to be the major means of purchases in the U.S.	53	41.73%
Chiefs win a Super Bowl	79	62.20%
Cure for cancer (Late-stage survival rates > 97%)	29	22.83%
Earthquake of Magnitude 8.3 or greater strikes somewhere in the continental U.S.	73	57.48%
Evidence of a pre-Ice Age civilization is discovered	12	9.45%
Faster than light travel is achieved (human transport)	8	6.30%
Flying cars	23	18.11%
Food shortages lead to permanent ban on consumption of meat in at least one country (population > 10 million)	23	18.11%
Households manufacture all necessary goods themselves, purchasing only raw materials and plans for 3D printing	14	11.02%
Human sets foot on Mars	66	51.97%
Humans can communicate directly with at least two species of animals.	14	11.02%
Implantable computer/phone/internet devices are in 80+% of Americans	33	25.98%
Large scale nuclear bomb dropped or launched in a hostile act	40	31.50%
Major epidemic kills 10% or more of the US population	18	14.17%
Major epidemic kills 25% or more of a nation’s population (nation > 10 million people)	23	18.11%
Major meteor strike or other interplanetary event kills 1 million or more people	5	3.94%
One-world government is established	14	11.02%
Prenatal selection of certain traits will be possible for the middle class (e.g., height, nose shape, eye color)	46	36.22%
Peaceful resolution to the Israel-Arab conflicts is achieved	1	0.79%
Permanent cessation of Islamic extremism and terrorism	2	1.57%
Permanent human presence on Mars	5	3.94%
Permanent human presence on the moon	18	14.17%
Poverty is eliminated in the U.S., based on minimum standards of living that are achieved	5	3.94%
Proof of extraterrestrial life is confirmed	35	27.56%
Race is no longer an issue of conflict, contention, or policy in the U.S.	5	3.94%
Robot labor means that humans do not have to work to obtain basic needs (food, clothing, shelter)	13	10.24%
Robot labor provides household servants for the middle class (maid, butler, etc.)	26	20.47%
Small-scale radiation dirty bomb set off in hostile act	60	47.24%
Space tourism becomes a feasible option for the American middle class	33	25.98%
The US Senate OR House becomes majority female	8	6.30%
The world ends as described in the holy book of your choice	6	4.72%
Time travel to the future (more than one day)	1	0.79%
Time travel to the past (more than one day)	2	1.57%
U.S. adds at least one new state from territory that is not part of a current state	32	25.20%
U.S. is no longer the world’s most powerful nation	70	55.12%
U.S. no longer needs petroleum products as energy source	25	19.69%
U.S. splits into two or more countries	10	7.87%
None of these things will occur within 50 years.	1	0.79%
Poll fail. We will invent time travel, so the future will cease to exist.	5	3.94%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

11-25-2014, 09:45 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3288491 VARSITY	Which of these things will happen in the next fifty years? Poll forthcoming, but it'll take a few minutes. I would suggest that you use this time productively by learning the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody, or perhaps learning some key Chinese tourist phrases
Posts: 141,461

11-26-2014, 10:12 AM	#46
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3288491 VARSITY	Out of 49 votes so far, here are the things that a majority think will happen: Chiefs win a Super Bowl Massive earthquake somewhere in the U.S. Humans set foot on Mars Small-scale radiation dirty bomb set off U.S. is no longer the most powerful nation These are the things that less than 10% of people think will happen: Anti-gravity brought into everyday use Evidence of pre-Ice Age civilization Major meteor strike kills 1 million+ people Peaceful Arab-Isreali solution Cessation of Islamic extremism and terrorism Poverty is eliminated in the U.S. based on quality of life Race is no longer an issue in the U.S. House or Senate becomes majority female Worlds ends according to holy predictions Time travel to the future Time travel to the past U.S. splits into two or more countries The biggest thing I draw from this is a pessimism that we can resolve issues of social concern, both internal to the U.S. and also external. What does that mean? Does it mean that we should redouble our efforts to solve them? Give up on them? Just work to keep them from getting worse? Or does it mean that they're not important in the big picture? While it doesn't show up in my summary above, I also scan the full list and see some optimism about science. It appears that people are reasonably optimistic that science can make notable leaps forward even if mankind can't solve its social problems. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,461

11-26-2014, 10:15 AM	#47
Imon Yourside WhatUneed2Hear Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: AllSoulsMatter Casino cash: $2593181	Cure for cancer never as it already exists and is hidden, too much money to be made from it. Peace? no just can't happen governments won't allow that, they have to keep us busy. Chiefs win the big bowl? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm really reaching on that one, yet i remain optimistic __________________ "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" Peter 5:8 "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" Isaiah 29:16 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20
Posts: 44,245

11-26-2014, 10:17 AM	#48
Dave Lane Space Cadet and Aczabel Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kanab, UT, USA Casino cash: $9333275 VARSITY	50 years is too short. Almost none of this will happen. Maybe we visit Mars and maybe someone hits 130. Thats about it. 50 years ago was 1964. Advances since then have been very good but almost in an unpredictable way. The internet would have been WTF? in 1964. __________________ Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about RICO, espionage, sedition, impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.
Posts: 40,584

11-26-2014, 02:26 PM	#52
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3288491 VARSITY	So let's go down the list. Right now, 40% think we'll have a human celebrating their 130th birthday in the next 50 years. I voted yes. I think we've had people hit 120, so it's not that much of a stretch. However, I've also heard that life expectancy may be going down in the U.S. because of bad diets and no exercise. So it may be a small window in the short term where we have people who lived without fast food and get modern medicine, assuming no revolutionary breakthroughs. But I voted yes primarily because I think some scientist somewhere will figure out how to slow down our cellular degeneration. I think there will be a revolutionary breakthrough. It won't help everybody, but if you're the type who lives to 100 it'll help you keep going. Of course, the other wildcard is quality of life in China. If they continue to make strides forward, they may have big life expectancy boosts, and that doubles the pool of people who might make it to 130. The interesting sidebar to this issue is affording to live that long. A 130 year-old person today would have likely retired shortly after World War II. That's a long time to stretch your savings. So if we can live longer, are we working longer to afford it? That's a different question in my mind. You're trying to keep people vital from ages 75 to 90 or so, as opposed to stretching out the 105 year old another 25 years. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,461

11-26-2014, 02:38 PM	#53
Graystoke MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Driftless Region Casino cash: $895564	No Sex-Bot option?
Posts: 8,711

11-26-2014, 04:21 PM	#56
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3288491 VARSITY	Mile-high skyscraper. I agreed with cdcox on this, and voted no, though for a somewhat different reason. Simply put, I don't think a building that large is necessary in any sense. The current tallest buildings are being built solely as a tourism attraction; it's not that there's a need to build that high. I think the cost would be very high and there are better ways to invest in a tourism infrastructure. I think humans COULD build a building that tall, but I don't think anyone will want to, and I don't think businesses would want to be in the building. Frankly, it would be inconvenient if you were on an upper floor, not to mention a host of safety and security concerns. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,461

11-26-2014, 05:47 PM	#59
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3288491 VARSITY	Item 3: A war producing 20 million deaths. I voted no on this one. To produce 20 million deaths, I think you have to have two big combatants going all out and throwing haymakers at each other. Unless someone launches nukes, we're talking about a sustained war that involves divisions and lots of people in uniforms and tanks and planes. First, I think that type of war is going out of style. It's expensive and generally unpopular. It's better to find some angry minority group and arm them, or do cyberwar on their infrastructure, or stuff like that. I don't think anybody wants to get into a big massive land war these days. Second, there aren't a lot of candidates for a war that produces 20 million casualties. At that scale, I can probably name the only real candidates: India vs. Pakistan Russia versus Ukraine or other former Soviet Republic Russia versus China Russia versus NATO Iran versus somebody, but I don't know who. Maybe whatever Iraq becomes. That said, there are other possibilities, such as: Israel gets pushed to the wall and nukes most of the surrounding countries Maybe Nigeria or Burma or Ethiopia gets into a really protracted fight against a neighbor. The most likely probability would be some very long and protracted civil war in some big third-world country that goes on for 20 years and kills a bunch of people each year. But it would take a really big country to lose 20 million internally. Maybe Nigeria or Vietnam or Mexico with the drug wars. But there aren't that many countries that could lose 20 million without something unprecedented happening. I think it's either a major nuclear war, which I think is unlikely, or a protracted civil war, which isn't likely to happen in a big enough country to produce that many casualties. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,461