The future of humanity

[Psychedelic_hands]

If you think about it, war should be a thing of the past now. We should be getting the most intelligent people of the world to be leading us, who could resolve issues without even the thought of violence.
But no.
We get war-hunger money-grabbers, things are so corrupt but people in charge are too afraid to change anything or try something new because of fear of loosing power.
Money is the worst thing to happen in the world, surely we could teach people to give and exchange out of kindness not greediness?

[Gabbe]

Yeah i heard this guy said something about that there was type 1-2-3 civilisations and we are type 0, and that from 0-1 is the most dangerous phase. I think that we should collapse the US canada china japan and Europe, the only countries that have a chance of standing this test and use all of their/our technologies.

If you think about it, war should be a thing of the past now. We should be getting the most intelligent people of the world to be leading us, who could resolve issues without even the thought of violence.
But no.
We get war-hunger money-grabbers, things are so corrupt but people in charge are too afraid to change anything or try something new because of fear of loosing power.
Money is the worst thing to happen in the world, surely we could teach people to give and exchange out of kindness not greediness?

I shouldn`t but the worst war out there is the one with Islam, and well, they are fighting a "cosmic battle" with the "muslim forces against the christian forces" and that is maybe...religion..but i should probably not bring that up..

[Omega]

TL:DR, only read the first page.

I think we will eventually reach alpha (dang, I can't spell it, never could, and dont wanna look it up) but I am not sure about HUMANS reaching it. If I recall, there are 2 space shuttles that were launched which have both cleared the Termination Shock, but not sure if they are heading in the right direction. Their goal, I believe, was to search for life. As for humans on alpha centari (? am I close enough?), we'd need something like Civ4 has, with a statis chambers to prevent aging, because no humans could possibly survive reaching their with current shuttle speeds, and I doubt we could ever travel light speed (we still would take years at lightspeed). Even if they go there though, there's no guarentee of life, or even survivable planets.

As for a possibility of a nuclear war, I dunno, but I should hope not. At the moment, the world is in pretty much a stalemate. Every country knows that if they fire a nuke, they face getting nuked themselves. However, all it takes is one wiseguy (get smart, anyone?)... Also, it does raise a problem that terrorists who serve no country could use a nuke, and it would be difficult to retaliate since Nukes ALWAYS kill more innocents than intended targets. Humanity has had 2 nuclear explosions (not counting numerous tests) which each killed many civilians and few military personals (I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did). And advancements in technology have made nuclear bombs much much more powerful, easily capable of taking out a whole city, and leaving it a radiation wasteland for years.

Humanities future is impossible to predict, so I won't try to. Whether the future will be good or bad, nobody can say, though let's look at a few things:

It took thousands of years to go from the wheel to the automobile, but barely half a century to go from the automobile to space travel.

Some of the most deadly conflicts occured in the past 100 years. The two world wars caused more casuallities than any other, and they were using primitive technology. Imagine a world war today with nuclear bombs, jet fighters, advanced tanks, and more. Weapons have evolved to the point of being so deadly that it makes one wonder if a world war would whipe out humanity as we know it.

I can't recall who, but someone said "I don't know what world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones".

[-Archmage-]

(I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did)

You very obviously are under-educated about WWII.

The most well-known Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which several hundred thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered.[269] The Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 million to over 10 million civilians, mostly Chinese.

and leaving it a radiation wasteland for years

Go look at a picture of Hiroshima before we dropped the bomb and a picture of what it looks like today.


Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.

Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace".  

Gotta eat now, see ya.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.

Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace".  No Opinion

Gotta eat now, see ya.

Peace is child's fantasy????? sorry but reading that makes me dizzy. War is for stupid, irrational people. Nothing is worth killing for. I don't see how you could see that differently.

Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace. I can see how you think a dictatorship is peace though. Power just gets in the way of what is right.

[-Archmage-]

Peace is child's fantasy????? sorry but reading that makes me dizzy. War is for stupid, irrational people.

BINGO!

There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.

Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.

It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.

Nothing is worth killing for.

Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?

I can see how you think a dictatorship is peace though.

When did I ever say that?

[Psychedelic_hands]

BINGO!

There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.

Your being pessimistic, which isn't rational....... you're not helping  :>|

It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.

That's not peace at all. Thousands of people kill, hatred and  devastation might not be as peaceful as you think.
Peace equals living in harmony.
Peace does not equal, not living at all.

Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?

Haven't you heard of talking? Coming to a reasonable conclusion is a much better resolve IMO.

When did I ever say that? No Opinion

|
|
|
V

Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace".  No Opinion

Having control is NOT peace.

[wyvern]

I support Arch in this, I believe that there will always be some idiot who will want to rule everyone so we must have a strong army as a detterent. In WW2, do you know how the russians would have ended up if they had surrendered, they would have been enslaved or eradicated by the nazis, but instead they fought back and smashed the nazis. Or look at israel, they could be at peace with their enemies but their neighbors don't want peace they want to kill them all, so obviously israel must keep a strong army as a safeguard

[John.d.h]

World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening.  Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along.  The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out.  Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can.  Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.

[-Archmage-]

Quote
BINGO!

There are a lot of stupid, irrational people.

Your being pessimistic, which isn't rational....... you're not helping  :>|

My pessimism is a lot more rational than you're childish optimism. No offense.

Quote
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.

That's not peace at all. Thousands of people kill, hatred and  devastation might not be as peaceful as you think.
Peace equals living in harmony.
Peace does not equal, not living at all.

Well, the Japanese stopped fighting after the nuke, they stopped "disturbing harmony", so I'd call that peace by your definition.

Quote
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?

Haven't you heard of talking? Coming to a reasonable conclusion is a much better resolve IMO.

A conclusion to a terrorist means everyone who isn't faithful to Allah, loses their head. So all the terrorist wants is you gone, and his bomb will do that, talking is bad for him because that will delay the launch of his bomb.

Quote
When did I ever say that? No Opinion
|
|
|
V
Quote
Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace".  No Opinion

Uh.......what does that have to do with dictatorship.

Having control is NOT peace.

I guess you believe that anarchy is peace then?

I support Arch in this, I believe that there will always be some idiot who will want to rule everyone so we must have a strong army as a detterent. In WW2, do you know how the russians would have ended up if they had surrendered, they would have been enslaved or eradicated by the nazis, but instead they fought back and smashed the nazis. Or look at israel, they could be at peace with their enemies but their neighbors don't want peace they want to kill them all, so obviously israel must keep a strong army as a safeguard

Good points.

World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening.  Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along.  The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out.  Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can.  Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.

I agree.

[Omega]

World peace is a nice idea and it's something to strive for, but I don't see it happening.  Humanity is just too corrupt, hateful, and selfish to ever get along.  The day we have world peace is the day all life is wiped out.  Still, we should be trying to get along as best as we can.  Just because you can't achieve the ideal doesn't mean you shouldn't try to achieve improvement.

I think John hit it dead on. We all WANT peace, and it is very good, but as he said, humanity is simply to corrupt to ever achieve peace. Still, it's good to have at least as much peace as possible.

(I never condoned US's nuclear attack on Japan, whether or not it made Japan surrender, because of the sheer horror of what the Nukes did)

You very obviously are under-educated about WWII.

Not at all. I've seen that exact chart before. Unfortunately, russia lost many civilians due to starving, not to mention Germany invaded it. China lost tons because the Japanese came and killed them all. I'm not saying that they were good guys, but its still terrible to attack civilians. Looking at modern times, we notice how NATO countries do not condone civilian casualities in the world's current war zones, namely afghanistan. It happens yes, but we're there to protect the civilians while fighting the Taliban. Of course, we also notice how they don't condone killing an unarmed or injured Taliban fighter. Recently, a canadian soldier was in court because he killed an injured Taliban fighter (though I personally don't agree with that, because the guy WAS a Taliban fighter, and wouldn't have spared the soldier were the even the opposite way, as well, the Taliban soldier was injured, so one could look at it as even a mercy killing).

[John.d.h]

I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not.  I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.

[Omega]

I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not.  I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.

There's no real way to know, though I still think that dropping a nuke (or two) was a terrible thing to do.

IMO, it would have caused more military deaths, but less civilian deaths (why? Because, the general reaction of civilians is to run away. Military? Towards.). However, I'm not sure whether or not the second world war had conscription... I know the first did (at least for Canada) and would assume the second probably did too... Would vary per country, of course.

But really, we could see how much damage the atomic bombs did (though they rebuilt the cities) but now imagine the atomic bombs of today. They aren't the untried, prototypes of the '40s, but rather much, much more powerful! I think that they would have had no problem whiping out the entire city were they to have the technology of today... Imagine if all of a sudden Washington DC was gone? How would that cripple a country?

###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)

[modman]

Nobodies perfect, that is why we have war, peace is a child's fantasy.

Anti-war people are the most dangerous, they think they are going to get peace by protesting war, but all they're doing is working toward war. I'm all for peace and minimal nuclear useage, though we need to have the capability to fight, we need a strong military. You can quote a lot of people saying "Arms keep peace".  

"Nobody's perfect" is an excuse for war.  Pacifists are not dangerous people, but pacifism may be immoral in some situations.  Still, they are nowhere near the "most dangerous" groups.

And about developing nukes, no one educated in game theory would be opposed to developing them.  Dropping them, though, is a different story.  Consider what you think the US military's role is, and you have your answer.  If you consider it only to be of US citizens' protection, then dropping it wasn't so bad.

[wyvern]

I don't really know if dropping the nukes was a good course of action or not.  I've heard some good arguments saying that there would have been even more people killed by a long drawn-out land invasion, but I don't think there's really any way to know what might have been.

There's no real way to know, though I still think that dropping a nuke (or two) was a terrible thing to do.

IMO, it would have caused more military deaths, but less civilian deaths (why? Because, the general reaction of civilians is to run away. Military? Towards.). However, I'm not sure whether or not the second world war had conscription... I know the first did (at least for Canada) and would assume the second probably did too... Would vary per country, of course.

But really, we could see how much damage the atomic bombs did (though they rebuilt the cities) but now imagine the atomic bombs of today. They aren't the untried, prototypes of the '40s, but rather much, much more powerful! I think that they would have had no problem whiping out the entire city were they to have the technology of today... Imagine if all of a sudden Washington DC was gone? How would that cripple a country?

###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)

It can be taken out with another anti missile missile and I would like to point out that japanese civilians would not have fled but would have instead jumped under allied tanks with dynamite. also the damage by the atomic bombs was actually less then what was caused by several of the US firebombing raids. I think it was the right thing and it saved countless lives on both sides.

"Nobody's perfect" is an excuse for war.  Pacifists are not dangerous people, but pacifism may be immoral in some situations.  Still, they are nowhere near the "most dangerous" groups.

And about developing nukes, no one educated in game theory would be opposed to developing them.  Dropping them, though, is a different story.  Consider what you think the US military's role is, and you have your answer.  If you consider it only to be of US citizens' protection, then dropping it wasn't so bad.

Actually pacifists can be very dangerous at times, imagine if we had remained pacifists in WW2 what do you think would have happened. And actually the fact that nobody's perfect means that it is often just one person(Adolf Hitler for example) that causes a war. The others might want peace but the only other option is destruction obviously pacifism has its flaws

[Omega]

Actually pacifists can be very dangerous at times, imagine if we had remained pacifists in WW2 what do you think would have happened. And actually the fact that nobody's perfect means that it is often just one person(Adolf Hitler for example) that causes a war. The others might want peace but the only other option is destruction obviously pacifism has its flaws

There's no real way to know what would have happened. Some country that took no sides in the world wars managed to escape basically unscathed. Others got pulled into the conflict because some one attacked them, and lastly, others were just in the wrong place, and the country would be turned into a battlefield.

Using the US for an example:
In world war 1, the US joined because the Germans were sinking passenger ships, which contained american civilians. In world war 2, they joined because the Japanese attacked pearl harbour.

[wyvern]

Exactly and because theres always gonna be some violent persons were never gonna have peace. Also pacifism fails a lot too. For example britain and france were really scared of germany in 1938 and allowed it to occupy Sudetenland even though the Czech army was superior in technology and equipment and more then able to hold its own in the vast mountain defense system. When the germans occupied czechoslovakia they got nearly all the tanks of any worth that they would use in the first 2 years of the war until they finally produced enough of their own and even then they used these tanks to build tank hunters etc. In the end war wasn't avoided anyway through this pathetic pacifism and appeasement.

[Mark]

Exactly and because theres always gonna be some violent persons were never gonna have peace. Also pacifism fails a lot too. For example britain and france were really scared of germany in 1938 and allowed it to occupy Sudetenland even though the Czech army was superior in technology and equipment and more then able to hold its own in the vast mountain defense system. When the germans occupied czechoslovakia they got nearly all the tanks of any worth that they would use in the first 2 years of the war until they finally produced enough of their own and even then they used these tanks to build tank hunters etc. In the end war wasn't avoided anyway through this pathetic pacifism and appeasement.

Lemme guess, your a Czech.  Only a proud citizen or person with relevant heritage would try to make a point while rambling like that.  But I digress.  (Actually, I didn't mind you discussing that, because I had not known the details in the past.  I suppose here I will come away better informed.)  You're right.  Pacifism is better than war-mongering, but such absolutist morality cannot stand up in the face of true adversity.  Only sheltered people can afford absolutist morality, and I am sheltered in that I have never had to choose between kill, be killed, or let someone else/multiple other people die.  If I did, pacifism would probably fail to gain a hold in my head.

[wyvern]

For me if it was kill or be killed I'd kill, and yes I'm am czech but thats not really the reason why I believe they could have held out against hitler. I have sources that support that. At any rate while I would rather not have any war and would usually support being pacifist. The cold hard truth is very different and if your not ready to defend yourself against the occasional madmen that want war and to obliterate you theres no option but to fight back. do you think osama bin laden won't kill you cuz your pacifist. Still know that I do wish the sorld was at peace.

[Mark]

Future of Humanity Issues:

Energy: Here is how I see it.  The worlds oil reserves as we know them will be gone/unharvestable in less than 150 years.  After that, we will have to use these energy sources:
Shale Oil-oil that is trapped within shale is extremely abundant in this world.  It is, alas, more expensive to get.  The reserves of shale oil could last over 2 centuries.  Shale oil is likely to be popular because it does not force people to change their consumption mechanisms, just the mechanisms for harvesting.  Oil could be between 5-10 US dollars a gallon, but that is unknown.
Hydroelectric-Already in place in many locales, this energy source is cleaner and renewable.  Though it does require fast rivers and the destruction/remaking of river ecosystems, it does produce huge amounts of energy, and can be produced in most countries.  One example is Hoover Dam.
Nuclear-Despite what environmentalists might claim, nuclear is actually one of the most efficient and viable sources of energy for some countries.  For example, france has nuclear power plants producing the majority of its energy.  Though when highly enriched it could be converted into the stuff of nukes, international treaties and strong watchdog groups can ensure that new nuclear bombs are not created.
Solar Power-windmills and solar panels will be inefficient and unpopular.

Gotta go, I will add to the list of future of humanity issues later.

[John.d.h]

I'm inclined to disagree with your point on solar energy.  From what I've heard, solar cells are getting cheaper, more efficient, and more durable, and the sun isn't going anywhere until long after our species is a distant memory.  Here at my university, we've got a solar car that runs without ever needing to be plugged in.  Admittedly, it's not a full-sized car, and it's not terribly fast, but it certainly serves as an excellent proof of concept.

Source.

The solar panels convert the sun's energy into electricity that keeps the car's battery charged, even at night and on overcast or rainy days. Without the solar panels, the car would need to be plugged into an electrical outlet every 35 miles, for eight hours each day to recharge the battery.

"We've never plugged it in," said Norvell, whose office purchased the car in December and has since logged 1,600 miles.

[Mark]

I'm inclined to disagree with your point on solar energy.  From what I've heard, solar cells are getting cheaper, more efficient, and more durable, and the sun isn't going anywhere until long after our species is a distant memory.  Here at my university, we've got a solar car that runs without ever needing to be plugged in.  Admittedly, it's not a full-sized car, and it's not terribly fast, but it certainly serves as an excellent proof of concept.

Not my point.  I know that in the long term, solar power (wind or sun) will be the best solution, because vast swathes of land in wyoming, arizona and elsewhere in the united states (and in the world), which would normally be eyesores, can be covered with panels or turbines.  The problem is, most people are unwilling to make commitments to solar because it takes up to 30 years and almost always at least 2 for a profit to be had.  Places in europe are innovating, but in america, which is excessively committed to the short term, we are behind.  It is certainly true that the fastest leaps in energy are taking place in solar, but it would be ignorant to a woeful degree to claim that they are likely to be common in this world anytime soon.  Until then, alternative energy sources to this alternative energy source ( ) will be the norm.

WW3:
If it is ever to occur, several powerful nations (those with Nukes) would have to forge alliances with each other and attack simultaneously.  For this to ever be able to combat the western world, these nations would have to be both dictatorially controlled and nuclear armed.  Iran and North Korea meet both criteria (though some claim Iran is not nuclear-armed).  However, this war would not reach the united states or even western Europe, unless Russia and china were to aid the enemy party.  High powered weapons and gear are already trickling out of the former USSR, and some speculate that its vast nuclear stockpile could begin to follow this trend.  I read in Newsweek that several top pentagon officials have reached a consensus that there is over a 50% possibility that a small nuke (possibly from Russia) will hit America by 2020, and a missile by 15 years after that.  Actually, the US and the rest of the west are not in danger from the small missiles that are in North Korea; most can hit japan, china, south Korea or Russia, but 500 miles is the extent of many of their known missiles.  One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks.  People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper.  In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed.  In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.

That basically surmises my knowledge of a possible WW3.  What other future issues are there?

[wyvern]

That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan

[modman]

Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.

It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.

Although you're fundamentally correct, you don't have to make it that complicated.  There's a reason police officers carry weapons.  At potentially violent protests, they send in those officers to keep peace.

Nothing is worth killing for.

Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?

Unfortunately, what psychedelic does not understand is that pacifism only works under a mutual agreement.  If everyone promised not to kill, it would be much simpler.  But nature doesn't work that way.  If all trees in a forest agreed to grow only three meters tall, it would be much better for all trees; nature is, however, constant competition.

As for a possibility of a nuclear war, I dunno, but I should hope not. At the moment, the world is in pretty much a stalemate. Every country knows that if they fire a nuke, they face getting nuked themselves. However, all it takes is one wiseguy (get smart, anyone?)...

I wouldn't describe it as a stalemate right now.  None of the countries which have nuclear weapons want to launch them.  The world economy has progressed to a point where it is in the best interests of everyone to remain peaceful.  Without capitalism . . . who knows?  Iran is a threat (damn Islamic Revolution) but I think that we might even be able to shoot it down (see SDI).

###Question for the more experienced, I'm curious, is there any working method of taking out missile's in flight? (such as an ICBM)

Dunno, but there are a ton of proposed methods.  If there were one, I doubt us peons would know about it.  Top secret.  Read the SDI Wikipedia page, though.  It is very interesting.  I read the CHECMATE section and it is very interesting.  A hypervelocity rail gun capable of firing a projectile at 24 miles per second . . .

[Omega]

Iran and North Korea meet both criteria (though some claim Iran is not nuclear-armed).

Iran is the only one that claims that... Everyone else thinks they are making nukes, since even their government has (in the past) specified a desire to create nukes.

And while its true North Korea's missiles are currently very limited, given a few years, they could easily develope into long range ICBMs. And N. Korea still harbors strong feelings against S. Korea, and it wouldn't surprise me if they attacked (their leader is a total mentally insane idiot... Mutually assured destruction means nothing to him!).

@SDI: I do recall this from Civ 4, which prompted me to look it up a few years ago, but to my knowledge, such a project has never been completed and has had no recent news.