Year 2150

Sometimes I wonder what life will be like in the distant future. Namely, I wonder if our political institutions will be more free, or less so.

I’ve sort of invented two scenarios of future events. Some people might say that it is nothing but science fiction. I would say that science fiction has an uncanny tendency of becoming reality.

So here are two ridiculous sci-fi narratives. Tell me which one is more likely to occur.

Possibility 1

Possibility 2

So which is more likely to occur? Possibility 1 or 2?

I have to say that was the most well thought-out thing I’ve read all summer. Although hypothetical, both situations do seem incredibly feasible. I think we’re heading towards 2 until the 2012 election when Ron Paul gets elected. But, after that, I say we’re on Track #1.

I tend to see no.1 happening, but not because people will just start to see the right way (pacifism doesn’t survive a loss of income due to competition form foreign countries with better laws), but because nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped. And the day shall come when nukes are so cheap and widespread hat war shall be impossible. Than perhaps a slow tendency to cantonize and secede shall begin.

You’re doing it wrong: No respectable futurist does a piece without fearmongering over intergalactic “sterilizers.”

Anyway, Scenario 2 is far more believable. A One-World-Government (Scenario 1) could never succeed in bringing about peace.

I’d say a mixture, with 2 initially leading to successive crises (much like those which plagued the Roman Empire) causing the collapse of the US (and by then, USSE) and gradually culminating in 1.

nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped. And the day shall come when nukes are so cheap and widespread hat war shall be impossible.

Not until after a massive nuclear war. No weapon has yet been invented without being used in war.

No weapon that could kill the king the first minute that war begun has ever existed prior to 1945. This is what gives me hope.

Why not?

Maintaining the standard of living currently enjoyed in the 21st Century requires a large amount of international trade. If all the nations of the world agreed to stop trading with one country, that country would be forced to disarm. The threat of being targetted in such fashion would be an economic incentive to prevent aggressions and protect human rights.

Right?

I’ll have to go with choice “3”

Look at the history of embargos. They do nothing but lower the standard of living in every country involved and give power-hungry “leaders” a point of leverage against their citizens. Government is never helpful: It only has the power to destroy.

Furthermore Scenario 1 seems to be “A One-World-Government emerges and forces everyone to play nice together.” This view is hopelessly naiive. How well has centralization and monopoly worked with anything?

I have to say a little of both. Surely the revolution of the internet has increase the amount of exploitation of the wrong-doings of the executive and legislative branch. The people will start to elect leaders that are capable of giving real freedom back. Ron Paul has instigated that and there has been so much support for libertarian ideologies. As long as we have the ability to educate the future generations, the Constitution can be restored until the people change their philosophy of what government should be doing for them!

Probably a post human world, biology is on the verge of revolutionizing existence. 150 years from now I wouldn’t be suprised if were not organic.

Well it depends on your definition of organic. The first “transhumans” will probably be made out of graphene-based circuits, assuming we don’t find some way to make superior ones out of exotic matter first.

Anyone read “Accelerando”? It’s an interesting take on the changes to come.

Probably a post human world, biology is on the verge of revolutionizing existence. 150 years from now I wouldn’t be suprised if were not organic.

Don’t be ridiculous. No scientific advancement in genetic engineering, cloning, or robotics will ever stop people from procreating the fun way.

That’s like expressing the luddite fear that machines are going to make human workers obsolete. Science will never make humans obsolete.

It is doubtful the first iterations of transhumans will give up sex, but later ones probably will. Once you can physically modify your brain to have complete control over your feelings and thoughts, having an orgasm is as simple as pressing a button. Surely there will be those who will do it for nostalgia but it will no longer serve any practical purpose. Our descendants will probably find something more fun than sex to occupy their time with anyway.

As for procreation itself, “growing” babies within artificial wombs outside the mother (after all the kinks are worked out of course) will be much less stressful for the parents, and much safer for both the mother and the baby. And once it can be done cheaply there won’t be much point in having a baby the natural way anymore, with the exception of the nostalgic reasons why some women have births at home today.

It depends on what you mean by obsolete. Is a javelin obsolete compared to a gun?

I thought women had babies at home because if you have the baby in the bathtub its like 70% less painful? And better for the baby b.c. warm water cushions them and keeps them warm. This is what my girlfriend says.

In the bathtub? Wouldn’t that drown the baby?

Not FULL of water… like a couple inches

In the bathtub? Wouldn’t that drown the baby?

Of course not. The baby spent ~9 month swimming, having the lungs filled with liquid since their development. The baby still gets oxygen through umbilical cord until it is severed.