What will the year 2065 be like?
- Thread starter Randoman01
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The value of Marx's work is that he identified problems with capitalism and wrote about them in-depth, not necessarily any proposed solutions. Much of his theory is of value even to capitalists, at least the ones that don't want it to be a completely unregulated free-for-all.the silence said:
Care to explain why Marx is "stupid"?
JohnZ117 said:
Alright. My main issue with Marx is that he promoted, and tried to, bring on a violent revolution. Which people took at face value, as you can see in soviet history, for example.DizzyChuggernaut said:
And it did pretty much absolutely nothing, aside from creating some people who took his word as gospel.
Adding to that my own dislike of philosopher, I am of the opinion that "Marx is stupid".
Well, it does obviously not mean that he did not do some good critique of capitalism at the time. (If you want to use stupid objetively, he is not it). But, his ideology is deeply flawed, and did not do good things.
There are other who would deserve the spot he stands on much more, like, for example, Bakunin.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word: Plastics.
As the oil runs out, we will have to make some serious changes. Research in Bioplastics is happening, and some people seem to think that the end result of that research could be a complete revolution in the manufacture of practically everything. Other people have more of a doomsday view that once we're out of oil we lose the ability to do anything because no more plastics. Either way, something is going to change!
I just hope we shoot whoever invents the Robo-wasps, the flesh and blood variety are bad enough.
As the oil runs out, we will have to make some serious changes. Research in Bioplastics is happening, and some people seem to think that the end result of that research could be a complete revolution in the manufacture of practically everything. Other people have more of a doomsday view that once we're out of oil we lose the ability to do anything because no more plastics. Either way, something is going to change!
I just hope we shoot whoever invents the Robo-wasps, the flesh and blood variety are bad enough.
No clue.
There's virtually no possible way to accurately predict what major and minor scientific advancements we can make over decades. At least I can't anyway, seeing as how I'm an idiot. For all I know we could have colonies on Mars by then. Or that might take 100 years from now, or humanity might go completely extinct before then. No way to tell what the future has in store.
We could have fully functioning cybernetic limbs covered in amazing plastics that make it completely impossible to tell if anyone even lost a limb to begin with. Or we could just make the 3D-printed ones people are making now more widely available, functional, and even cheaper.
Maybe the robots will have killed us all by then, or maybe we'll all have been replaced by super-powered mutants.
Maybe it'll just be exactly the same, except we'll be mocking the people who waited in line a week to buy the iPhone 50.
There's virtually no possible way to accurately predict what major and minor scientific advancements we can make over decades. At least I can't anyway, seeing as how I'm an idiot. For all I know we could have colonies on Mars by then. Or that might take 100 years from now, or humanity might go completely extinct before then. No way to tell what the future has in store.
We could have fully functioning cybernetic limbs covered in amazing plastics that make it completely impossible to tell if anyone even lost a limb to begin with. Or we could just make the 3D-printed ones people are making now more widely available, functional, and even cheaper.
Maybe the robots will have killed us all by then, or maybe we'll all have been replaced by super-powered mutants.
Maybe it'll just be exactly the same, except we'll be mocking the people who waited in line a week to buy the iPhone 50.
Men will live in cities, and in towns and farms, and alone. People will be born, and die. People will grow older, live life, and die. Others will marry, give birth, and raise those new ones, and die. Then those new people will grow old and die themselves. I imagine life will proceed exactly as it always has, as it always will, forever.
Of course, if we don't have some space colonies, I will be very, very peeved. C'mon future humans, we've got the survival of all life to worry about here!
Of course, if we don't have some space colonies, I will be very, very peeved. C'mon future humans, we've got the survival of all life to worry about here!
Oooh I see where you thought I was going with that. Very clever! That would have been better in retrospect. Less is more.Creator002 said:I swear, if you come back in 50 years and edit this post, I'm will find you, and I will edit my post too. I might be dead by 2065 though (I'll be 73 at this time in 50 years).Frezzato said:
EDIT - Ha ha. I guess I misunderstood your vague post.
I think we'll have civilian trips to the moon as well as some lunar base(s). Maybe even a Mars base. Other technology (computers, mobiles, TVs, games) will probably advance as much as it has in the last 50 years
At first I was wondering what the guy was going on about, but then about half way through I saw the channel was one of the PBS Idea Channels and realized the problem was he has no idea what he's talking about (the PBS Idea Channels are probably the strongest argument for cutting public funding to PBS I've ever seen).JohnZ117 said:
The guy completely ignores the fact that Venus has acid rain and no magnetic field and doesn't even make mention of the economic value of colonization, which is the only thing which can make it happen long term beyond a few tiny research stations. You'll never see cities built in a place with no economic value.
I figure things will be the same as they are now, with minor tweaks to the nature of technology more than in its overall power. Continental maps might change thanks to global warming and political borders will keep on shifting...
Socially? The more our work is automated, the more we'll need to start rethinking Capitalism. If automation doesn't negate the need for jobs, then the divide between the poor and the wealthy will keep growing. Civil disobedience turns into rebellion, or current democracies turn into dictatorships to secure the status quo. I wouldn't be surprised if corporations replaced Super PACs or voter groups, until the influence of Big Business on Politics becomes hard to ignore.
Some thinkers are already rethinking the value of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, thinking we need to invest on productivity and performance, instead. I've seen examples made of Japan, which is a country with a lazer-sharp focus on I.T. and Applied Sciences, but I wonder how healthy this would be for Literature or Art History if it was applied on a worldwide basis. You don't need to be able to land a critique of Shakespeare's works to be competitive in the job market, but ignoring culture as a whole can't possibly be good for any civilization.
I also doubt we'll go anywhere, in terms of off-world colonization. Unless overpopulation becomes an absolutely cloying problem or the survival of the human race comes to hinge on it, the deciders will always be scared away by the absolutely massive financial commitment required of projects like that.
Socially? The more our work is automated, the more we'll need to start rethinking Capitalism. If automation doesn't negate the need for jobs, then the divide between the poor and the wealthy will keep growing. Civil disobedience turns into rebellion, or current democracies turn into dictatorships to secure the status quo. I wouldn't be surprised if corporations replaced Super PACs or voter groups, until the influence of Big Business on Politics becomes hard to ignore.
Some thinkers are already rethinking the value of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, thinking we need to invest on productivity and performance, instead. I've seen examples made of Japan, which is a country with a lazer-sharp focus on I.T. and Applied Sciences, but I wonder how healthy this would be for Literature or Art History if it was applied on a worldwide basis. You don't need to be able to land a critique of Shakespeare's works to be competitive in the job market, but ignoring culture as a whole can't possibly be good for any civilization.
I also doubt we'll go anywhere, in terms of off-world colonization. Unless overpopulation becomes an absolutely cloying problem or the survival of the human race comes to hinge on it, the deciders will always be scared away by the absolutely massive financial commitment required of projects like that.
He was just comparing the plausibility of colonising one planet over the other. While I still believe that the colonisation of Mars would be easier, he does raise some good points about Venus. Our technology would have to be super advanced to even consider colonising another world, and by that time maybe we'd develop technology that can withstand Venus' hazards better than Mars'. Maybe not. Maybe we'll colonise the moon first. It's just a fun pop science video, man. It's an interesting possibility to entertain.Zontar said:
When it comes to places to live colonizing space itself is the most practical in the form of building stations with artificial gravity. Moon colonization would most likely be in the form of short term deployment of people on a mostly automated mining facility. Really the moon only has value in its Helium 3 deposits and the fact that it's a safe place to build things that have danger involved in the production proses.DizzyChuggernaut said:
Venus may someday be a worthy place to colonize, but that will only be after we manage to artificially induce the formation of a magnetic field as well as change the atmospheric composition to be habitable for life. Even then the value would be questionable due to how much effort would be required to make it habitable to human life. Flying cities on the other hand are something that wouldn't have any value outside of research. You'd never see more then a few hundred people on such things on the planet because there's no reason for it. Research and science in and of itself will only get so many people to go to a place.
I think Japan probably stands as a testament to the fact that even without much focus on Social Science or Liberal Arts you can still have a thriving culture of ideas for the arts. In terms of comics, for example, Japan is in a league of its own compared to North America or Europe in terms of diversity and creativity within the medium, to say nothing of animation which has them produce 60% of the worlds total output, and unlike in the West animation has all ages targeted instead of falling into "only meant for children" or "vulgar comedies meant for adults that aren't really mature" as seems to unfortunately be the standard for the Western world.IamLEAM1983 said:
If anything one could argue their lack of focus on Social Science and Liberal Arts has helped their works of art, not hampered them. And given the type of things people call art today here in the West (especially the new 'feminist' art) I can't say such a shift in the rest of the world would be a bad thing.
This thread reminds me of something I said a long time ago... this year...
Other than that, why does female viagra come in more various flavors? No one from 2065 can answer that nonchelauntly and shit...
Sure, it's off by 100 years, but given how much shit changes in retrospect while also shit doesn't change in retrospect, it's neither right or wrong and it only gets better/worse when you start adding in multiple parallel universes in the mix...FPLOON post="18.877421.22089041" said:
Other than that, why does female viagra come in more various flavors? No one from 2065 can answer that nonchelauntly and shit...
Ill be a 77 year old raider in leather with a surprising amount of hairgel and hairdye for a cool spiky punk hairdo riding my motorcycle around the wasteland fighting other survivors for petrol and food. All whilst trying not to get eaten by the mutants or murdered by the cyborgs who still think its world war 3...
Much like now but tech will be smaller and faster and everyone will be playing the newest AAA game, Half Life 3.
Well, given that Singularity is set to take place in 2030, by 2065, we'd probably all have an android or two as best buds, the internet would have mega evolved into an interesting complexity, while, nonetheless, a powerful beast, people might be cryogenically freezing themselves or loved ones for a future present, and we might actually have people preparing to download their conscious into a machine or robot body.
Also flying cars and light sabers; can't forget about those.
Also flying cars and light sabers; can't forget about those.
The singularity is massively overrated in my opinion. Computing Forever made a great video on the matter.CrimsonBlaze said:
Now that isn't to say we aren't going to make better computers as time goes on, but many of the ideals given to what the singularity will do, such as immortality and god like A.I. are just fantasy.