Most likely the world will become a miserable, wretched place in that time, even more so than it is currently. There are a plethora of disasters that will likely arise. The effects of climate will almost certainly continue to gradually intensify, leading to more powerful natural disasters and resource shortages. In a few centuries, it is also quite possible that some kind of nuclear conflict could break out, causing whole nations to collapse following a nuclear war, or perhaps even the entire globe. If humanity is completely exterminated, then I suppose whatever remaining life on the planet will continue to exist, evolving over the course of millions of years in adaption to whatever new conditions the nuclear apocalypse created. If humanity does survive, the remaining disorganized communities will slowly establish their own civilizations/tribes, akin to the various factions imagined in the lore of the Fallout series
It's very rare that videogames are correct. Radiation would most likely just kill the animals, and if there were survivors they'd be unlikely to radiate in a way shown in the series. More likely they'd get growths that'd shorten their lifespan or some other deformities, and the more natural animals would survive meaning they dominate the food chain for too long eventually becoming the only thing on it and dying out, causing all animals to have died.
Even if humanity does not become extinct or fall into a global dark age, technological advancement and demographic changes will most certainly result in profound social consequences that may lead to complete cultural degeneration. The increasing automation of labor will put millions of Americans out of jobs (we already have the threat of self-driving cars today, let alone 500 years down the line). The increasing global population will facilitate research shortages and skyrocketing costs to healthcare and welfare systems. All of this may result in a revolution of sorts, as the population revolts against the government unless they provide a reasonable standard of living as envisioned by the populace. Perhaps some skillful cadre of politicians will cooperate to radically transform the structure of the global economy and to geoengineer the world to prevent natural disasters. Such a radical, skillfully executed effort may avert catastrophe. Most likely, civilization will just collapse as a whole from these problems.
Yes, the shortening of space is certainly a problem. We actually need to halt our development, haha. Of course if we do that we'll never get a planet for more development, which begs the question if furthered space travel (building colonies on mars) is even possible. Nevertheless I don't imagine humanity will survive 1,000 years, I was just asking the opinions of others.
The only real "positive" scenario I can foresee is that the world may arrive at a technologically-facilitated utopian society as artificial intelligence reaches general, superhuman capabilities. if a superhuman AI is created—and this program is benevolent towards humans—it may use its god-like intelligence and cyberspace capabilities to bring about a perfect world for humanity. It will dissolve all nations, place each individual person in the best reality for his/her fulfillment, and allocate the earth's resources with perfect efficiency. If the AI turns out to be malevolent instead, it will simply wipe out humanity with absolute thoroughness. I have no idea if the program will decide to end all life in such a scenario. It really depends on what the priorities are for such an artificially intelligent entity.
I severely doubt this. Unless the sole purpose of the robot was to protect all humans anything the robot could do humans would be an interfering force in. Printing out paper? Humans use paper and they are impererfect, and would be unable to help the robot. A robot made to make paper would be better. Even then a robot built to help humans might do so by essentially putting them in caged off mental assylums.
I think the gender imbalances will continue until the end of biology. Only when sentience transcends biology intself.
True. We, as people, need... building blocks. Pillars to lean on. Most people's pillars are if they're stronger or weaker, that's why there was a caste system. Sure, no one wants to be weak but it kills you not to know if you are.
I don't feel competent in making any 500 or 1000 year predictions. I do think humanity is in the process of destroying itself. There are just too many things going wrong at the same time: the destruction of white civilization, the burgeoning global nonwhite population, dysgenics, feminism, liberalism, egalitarianism, Islam, climate change and ecological destruction, among many other things. However, I have absolutely no idea how things will end up. Our future could be transhumanist, primitivist, ethno-nationalist, etc.
Understandable. Though frankly I don't think you should worry about competence. Sometimes the most simple thing about a question is it's answer, and if people judge you for it then that's their problem. Though I'm curious, how is Islam a bad thing?
In 100 years we will be a completely trans-human society, mostly technological and at that point who the fuck knows what's going ahead.
Think of how much the apple watch costs. Now imagine applying that to your arm, permenantly. I think transhumans would exist... as very very rich people.
we'll be fucked in 100 years, idk how shit will last without a massive societal shift
We do a surprisingly good job at holding ourselves together. I'd say most people would survive if a second great depression happened, just it would be much worse as so many people are addicted to their phones and food.
I think a good place to start when asking that question is "Where were we 100/500/1000 years ago?" And get a sense for how different things were back then comparatively. To see how that many years can change a society, and that's minus all of the technological advancements we've made. In the 90s, the 60s were distant. But here in 2018, the 80s don't seem as far away as the 60s did in the 90s because we have so many records of things now, and we keep track of things better.
That's why people freak out when you tell them 2030 is closer to us than 2005. It doesn't feel like that's true, because so much 2005 stuff still exists on the Internet, as though it wasn't more than a decade ago.
This is a very good point. But I think it's flawed. The phone booth was made in 1881, and the mobile phone was made in 1973. Huge gap right? But the iPhone was made in 2007. Although all of these are different, it took much less time to make such a different piece of technology. We're getting better at building. So although it's good to look at our pasts you also have to know that progression is made on a slope. and it gets faster yearly.
I really think people are going to fight back ageist this globalism and feminism shit. history has shown when you get too much into peoples shit it back fires.
probably about 300 years it'll be like the 50's again. people will look back and see it just like the vaccine or blood draining era!
I hope by the vaccine era you don't mean you're anti vaccine. Moving on. yeah, I can totally see people fighting to make a change. The question is which side fights harder, though.
