Poll How do you see the future of humankind?

[PeterRoss]

First of all, this is not about spacefaring and all the fun stuff we like Orbiter for, it is about politics and economy. This theme was briefly mentioned in one of recent threads, so I'd like to know more opinions about the political/economical future of humankind.

I will give you a few options but your original variants are highly welcomed.

 

[RisingFury]

What? No cornucopia?

 

[Artlav]

Right now we seem to head towards total idiocracy.
Hopefully, something unexpected would knock us off-course.

 

[T.Neo]

I think the future of humankind is only deducable by looking at history. History will repeat itself.

People can make a difference, but with intrinsic human nature most of the time it doesn't happen.

 

[Stevodoran]

i see it as martin being the most powerful man in the world o-f will take over internet expolorer and every computer will have orbiter built in

 

[RisingFury]

Right now we seem to head towards total idiocracy.
Hopefully, something unexpected would knock us off-course.

December 21st 2012? Cos that would be the ultimate irony :lol:

 

[PeterRoss]

So, in a whole, I see too few votes for democracy. I find this lack of faith... indicative at least.

I think the future of humankind is only deducable by looking at history. History will repeat itself.

People can make a difference, but with intrinsic human nature most of the time it doesn't happen.

Right now we seem to head towards total idiocracy.
Hopefully, something unexpected would knock us off-course.

Well, it's quite popular idea (and quite obvious, I must say) to compare Western Civilization and Ancient Rome. It is shown in the beginning of the last movie of this cool fatso Michael Moore, and he's not original in this comparison.
The thing that knocked Rome off-course was some dudes with weapon and complete disrespect to civilization achievments. Of course there was rich background for the fall of Rome. But is our background rich enough, or are there any barbarians that strong? I'm afraid that any thing that will have enough power to knock world civilization off-course will concurrently destroy it.
Do you feel there is no hope that we will somehow find the way without relying on some disaster? Someday current 'free market' economy will become completely obsolete (we can see some evidence of this coming right now, I think) just because there will be no field to keep the market expanding. I can only guess that market will be divided between giant corporations which will eventually replace national state governments. But what will they do next? Will they start good old war for extermination to keep 'free market' and 'business struggle' concepts alive? Or will they try to rebuild world economy in some other way?
Or am I completely wrong?

i see it as martin being the most powerful man in the world o-f will take over internet expolorer and every computer will have orbiter built in

Funny. Still I believe man who created a world with his hands and brain will not be interested in taking over another world that was build in thousand years by a bunch of idiots. Too many bugs to fix.:lol:

 

[Mauler85]

Third World War that annihilates 75% of the worlds population Followed by an era of enlightenment. Then we finally get what Stephen Hawking said about not keeping our eggs in one basket and spread out amongst our solar system then galaxy.

 

[PeterRoss]

Third World War that annihilates 75% of the worlds population Followed by an era of enlightenment.

I doubt it. Rather it would be era of survival and hard work of cleaning the radioactive mess. Ever palyed Fallout?

 

[Face]

Well, I guess I have a more pessimistic way of seeing the future of mankind.

Based on what I know about history, what I can see today and what can be deduced for the near future, I think we will go full circle. I.e. just like every civilization in history, the one we are living in will go down. After some chaos and "dark ages", we will eventually create a new civilization.

BUT: The one we are in right now could easily be the "best" of all, because we found a way to extract (almost) all of naturally stored energy in our planet. If it is gone, it will be gone for a long time, certainly not available for the next 10 or 20 circles. So the next folks will have way less energy, and I think energy is the key to building up a global civilization.

Thus, I think a "we'll get out of our cradle"-scenario is unlikely, at least without help form outside. But this leads to more philosophical questions...

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

 

[PeterRoss]

Well, I guess I have a more pessimistic way of seeing the future of mankind.

Based on what I know about history, what I can see today and what can be deduced for the near future, I think we will go full circle. I.e. just like every civilization in history, the one we are living in will go down.

It is possible indeed. What do you think will be the way of 'going down' for us?

 

[Face]

It is possible indeed. What do you think will be the way of 'going down' for us?

There are many ways that are possible, but the important factor is the implicit lack of mankind to react as entity to obvious dangers. E.g. it is obvious that we destroy environment, yet there is no appropriate reaction. Not even common agreement about the facts. More often than not you see opinions that justify to go on as usual for the sake of personal enrichment.

Humans are individuals, and as such are very resistant to affords of creating community decisions on a large scale. This is the reason why something like communism - as good as it may sound in theory - can only fail. We simply are no "hive", we are no robots. This is our luck and our doom at once.

Because we can't melt our minds into one and decide to go into one direction, no one can "stear" mankind consciously (ok, creationists may disagree). Thus mankind is subject to outside rules more than to inner will, much like a molecule may have its own path through the room, while the gaseous fluid it is part of is subject to Bernoulli's equation.

One of this laws is the proportional relation of energy use and population growth, it seems. The more energy we can harvest, the more people are on earth. So what happens if we can't get the energy we need anymore? I think it would mean world-wide war. And with that comes break-down of global civilisation.

 

[T.Neo]

Yeah... or the next civilisation could find new sources of energy. Or we could find those sources of energy, come to think of it... :hmm:

I don't think it's right to accept overall doom and gloom, as psychologically appealing as it may be. Just as the more rosy, utopian depictions of the future are likely wildly inaccurate. Our global civilisation may go down, but it's also the first in history- even Rome was small on the scale of single nations today. I think only the history of this civilisation would be appropriate. And there are many things to be learnt from it, even if they are relatively minor historical events.

I have to agree with Face though, communism doesn't work. It is headed by individuals, and intrinsic human nature will lead to it's failure.

 

[computerex]

It would be ironically comical when the time comes of countries fighting one another for energy. An interesting contrast to the modern mindset of political correctness.

 

[PeterRoss]

So it seems for me there are two ways of braking this endless circle: to deprive a person of its 'rights and freedoms' and to break the law of energy use/population grow relation. Best effect when both ways are combined. And that's what I'm talking about:
Our usage of energy and resourses are highly inefficient: we produce more than we need and consume less than we produce. Too much of energy/resources are becoming waste, and that's just stupid. If we will be producing resourses/energy needed by consumers and not by salers we will lessen energy use/population grow ratio drastically. The main problem will be consumers who thinks they need all this energy they are using today. Well let's try not to repeat the mistakes of the past by using force to 'persuade' them. They will be forced to limit themselves by the lack of resources which is immenent (and which is happens now even in reachest countries already). I think it will be the end of market economy and the beginning of rational production/distribution type of one. You can call it communism and you can call it anything you like. You can even call it 'rational market' economy or 'social market'. The point here is that there is only two choices exist: either this way or degradation and destruction of our modern civilization.
And now speaking about individuals heading rational society to its failure because of their intrinsic human nature: why is it exactly? Aren't any human society or institution or organization are leaded by individuals and thereby doomed to failure by default? Does it stops us from creating societies, institutions, organizations etc.? Does they all fail?

 

[Pyromaniac605]

I see the future ending up really bad. Wars get out of control (ironic, no?) ending all forms of government and society with the world ending up in havoc with everyone fending for themselves. Or maybe I play to much Fallout. 0.o

Darren

 

[PeterRoss]

I see the future ending up really bad. Wars get out of control (ironic, no?) ending all forms of government and society with the world ending up in havoc with everyone fending for themselves. Or maybe I play to much Fallout. 0.o

Darren

I've heard somewhere that full-scale war in our time is quite impossible. Look at the costs of war of the most powerful state in the world with third-world countries Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at its results. While the costs are impressive the results are not at all. War with more stronger country will be even less productive. And we're talking about strongest army in the world.
And our beloved nightmare - the nuclear war - is impossible in the way of gaining resources because it is suicide and everyone understands it.

 

[Ghostrider]

I don't think we're going to see a swift and radical shift in the next decades, but we're not in for a nice ride, I'm afraid.
First of all, expect average life quality to go down, a lot. Not even two salaries are going to get most of us to the end of the month so we'll be seeing a great deal of families going under poverty line - and then the authorities will push the poverty line a bit lower in order not to spend too much on subsidies. More abuse on the part of employers, as well ("don't like it working 25/8? too bad, there's a line of starving scarecrows waiting to take your place"), more workers' rights going down the drain and generally an increased unhappiness among the middle/lower classes.

The divide between rich and poor is going to be a lot wider with all the collateral stuff. Crime is going to go up, both organized and petty crime. People are not going to simply get starved or thrown into the streets so your average citizen will have a lot less incentives to keep straight. I fully expect governments to react in the same old foolish way - instead of addressing the root causes of the problem they'll go repressive. Curfews will probably be amont the first measures. The current climate of paranoia and fear is going to worsen a lot, and most people will have a hard time remembering when taking a picture of a monument didn't result in immediate pepper-spraying, beating, arrest and being put on a "watch list".

Say goodbye to the internet as you know it. This is a non-issue, it's going to happen. Governments and big economic interests do not like it, and this is not the 90's or early 21st century anymore: it can be controlled and turned into cable TV pretty easily. There's only a handful of ISPs and once they've all been muscled in, you don't have a choice anymore. Talks of encryption or darknets are simply going nowhere because you still have to go through a provider and technology is not on our side, but on the side of those who can afford the very best. Guess what, it's not we the people. The future internet will resemble Apple or Nintendo Store, and the majority will be fine or resign to that. The rest will have no say in the matter whatsoever.

Same goes with free speech. Most of us are already wary of what they can or cannot say in public because the politically correct brigade is out to get them, and it's going to get worse. Be very careful about what you say on some public figure as well, or the Dark Army of the Lawyers will descend upon you like Vultures from Hell. On top of that, we'll be seeing a whole lot of security privatization. While this is OK in some instance, I suspect there will be a lot of SS wannabes just waiting to try their shiny new batons on some poor guy guilty of looking suspicious.

Of course mankind will bounce back, in time. We have a history of hitting rock-bottom and bouncing back (maybe because our heads are made of rubber) but we must wonder how long will the bad part last.

 

[Face]

So it seems for me there are two ways of braking this endless circle: to deprive a person of its 'rights and freedoms' and to break the law of energy use/population grow relation. Best effect when both ways are combined. And that's what I'm talking about:
Our usage of energy and resourses are highly inefficient: we produce more than we need and consume less than we produce. Too much of energy/resources are becoming waste, and that's just stupid. If we will be producing resourses/energy needed by consumers and not by salers we will lessen energy use/population grow ratio drastically. The main problem will be consumers who thinks they need all this energy they are using today. Well let's try not to repeat the mistakes of the past by using force to 'persuade' them.

You see, market economy is not a designed, controlled pattern. It is what happens if you let the rules unfold. Therefore, humans will naturally tend to this kind of economy.

Your idea of controlling markets to reduce energy "production" may sound logical, but it raises some questions hard to answer:
1. Who determines what customers need and what they do not need?
2. Who will organize and coordinate the energy distribution around the world?

They will be forced to limit themselves by the lack of resources which is immenent (and which is happens now even in reachest countries already).

This is one of the laws of nature our "gaseous fluid" have to deal with. Resources are limited.

I think it will be the end of market economy and the beginning of rational production/distribution type of one. You can call it communism and you can call it anything you like. You can even call it 'rational market' economy or 'social market'.

In essence, you propose communism here. By reducing individual freedom and rights, you automatically set grounds for rebellion. It is not because humans are dumb, but because humans are humans.

The point here is that there is only two choices exist: either this way or degradation and destruction of our modern civilization.

Indeed. And because I think the former is not possible due to human nature, the later is unavoidable.

And now speaking about individuals heading rational society to its failure because of their intrinsic human nature: why is it exactly? Aren't any human society or institution or organization are leaded by individuals and thereby doomed to failure by default? Does it stops us from creating societies, institutions, organizations etc.? Does they all fail?

Yes. History tells us, that they all failed sooner or later. No human community lasted "forever". This is my opinion, of course, and it heavily depends on how I define the terms "civilisation", "society" and "fail". What I think is, that no ordered and well organized human community survived for longer than about 500 years in the past.

The point here is "heading". What is "heading" or "leading"? It implies that one person or a group of persons is stearing the community into a rationally deduced direction. But humans are individuals and as such have often vastly different opinions on what is "rationally deduced" and what is not. If the leaders are going into a direction that cause suffering for some or all of their community (reduce population growth, "forcing" energy demands), it will cause the community to uproar, eventually ending in rebellion.
Therefore, leaders tend to do what the majority of the community wants to do, and this is not necessarily what is the rational thing to do. It is mostly the exact opposite of what is the rational thing to do, because dealing with limited resources is dealing with reducing life-style, life-span and - of course - reducing the amount of kids you can have.
And you can bet that everyone is thinking he deserves to have as much kids and as much life-style and as much life-span as his/her neighbour has. And if this everyone has enough of it, he just wants a little more, to be better than his neighbour.

This is what we are, after all, and if we change that, we are not talking about future of mankind anymore, because we'd transmute into something like ants or borgs.

 

[PeterRoss]

I don't think we're going to see a swift and radical shift in the next decades, but we're not in for a nice ride, I'm afraid.
...
Of course mankind will bounce back, in time. We have a history of hitting rock-bottom and bouncing back (maybe because our heads are made of rubber) but we must wonder how long will the bad part last.

You know, when I was reading 'Uthopia' by Thomas More I had a thougt that his world can be hardly considered uthopia in our modern perceptions. Same thing is about Plato who thought slaves are essential part of ideal state.
And then again, while reading some dystopias like 'This perfect day' and 'Brave new world' or playing 'Culpa Innata' I had an idea that these societies are looking bad from our 'free society' perspective only ('1984' was too hardcore of course). And our modern society have had many disadvantages in the eyes of people living in those fictional worlds.

Interesting moment is about privatized security: I too believe that police and military functions will someday be completely passed into hands of private companies. Don't know if it will be good or bad though.