What does the future hold for humanity?

[toddjh]

What will be the eventual fate of humanity?

Naturally, no one can see the future. This is just for kicks, and to see who among us are optimists and pessimists.

EDITED TO ADD: There needs to be a time limit so that we don't have to consider a possibly infinite future and try to figure out how it will "end." So, pick the option you think will best describe humanity in 10,000 years' time.

A few comments on what I mean by the various options:


Transhumanism describes the idea that humanity will change (evolve, develop -- whatever word you want to use) into something so advanced it can no longer be considered "human" in any meaningful sense. The exact nature of such an existence is, by definition, pretty hard to speculate on.

Supplanted by AI/engineered lifeform/etc. - I'm envisioning a Matrix-like situation where our creations get away from us and become the dominant form of life. Maybe we survive, maybe we don't, but we're no longer in control of our own destiny.

Interstellar civilization - We make it to the stars, ensuring the long-term survival of our species. FTL, ark ships...anything works.

Interplanetary civilization - We don't make it out of our solar system, but who needs to? There are plenty of resources here, and we make the best of them until the sun burns out.

Paradise on Earth - Leaving Earth just isn't practical. With a little human ingenuity, we have everything we need right here. Advanced technology ensures plenty of everything for everyone, and solutions are found to all major social problems. Everyone lives a long, fulfilling life.

Technological plateau - At some point in the not-too-distant future, we reach the limits of what our technology can do. We live sustainably with a decent level of technology, but we don't get too far ahead of where we are now.

Return to pre-industrial agriculture - With fossil fuels exhausted, industrial civilizations cannot be sustained. There is still some technology, possibly even high technology, but it doesn't play a part in the lives of most people. We return to a pre-industrial society, while retaining the knowledge we had before.

Return to stone age - Society collapses. Humanity survives, but only just, eking out a meager existence and not managing to rise again in the foreseeable future.

Extinction due to war - We blow ourselves up, gas ourselves, release a virulent bioweapon, what have you. Any form of extinction which results from violent confrontation.

Extinction due to technological catastrophe - That black hole we created in the lab doesn't seem like such a bright idea now, does it??

Extinction due to ecological collapse -- Our fumbling around with the ecosphere results in irreparable harm and mass extinctions, including ourselves.

Extinction due to natural event -- Asteroid impact, gamma-ray burst, nearby supernova (unlikely), supervolcanic eruption, you name it.

Extinction due to divine retribution -- 1inChrist was right after all.


Obviously, there is some overlap. Pick the one you think fits the best. If none of the options looks good to you, please post your ideas!

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Gah!!!

I accidentally hit Enter before completing the poll options.

Mods, any help??

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, there were interesting options left behind! From the ones available, I selected "Transhumanism".

[rustypouch]

I, for one, welcome our insect overlords.

[CurtC]

Hail Ants!

I would have voted for "Extinction due to natural catastrophe."

[toddjh]

I'm waffling between "Paradise on Earth" and "Technological Plateau." Right now, I think I'd go with the latter.

Jeremy

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CurtC
I would have voted for "Extinction due to natural catastrophe." Me too.

Rolfe.

[CBL4]

I think the choices are interstellar civilization or human caused extinction. I am a great believer in technology and liberal democracy so I voted for interstellar. Either we invent new technology, send slow colonizing ships or get visited by aliens. In any case, we get out of the solar system and live until universe dies.

If we are stuck inside the solar system eventually something bad will happen. In may be in a hundred years or a million but sooner or later humanity will do something really stupid. If we survive, then we will rebuild and have another collapse in another million years. Eventually we kill ourselves. There is just too much time for anything else to happen.

Get out or die.

CBL

[toddjh]

Now that I think about it, my question is a bit flawed. Obviously, if you go far enough ahead, we'll go extinct in the heat death of the universe no matter how well we've done up until that point, and that will be our eventual fate. There needs to be a time limit imposed to establish a context.

Does, say, the next 10,000 years sound good? That seems like enough time to make it clear which route we're headed without getting too far into the abstract future.

Jeremy

[CurtC]

Originally posted by CBL4
Get out or die.Since getting out, with our frail little bodies so dependent on the protections of the Earth, is so unlikely, "die" seems to be the only choice.

If we limit the discussion to 10,000 years, I think we can make it that long. For my "natural catastrophe" answer, I was thinking more like a million years.

[AWPrime]

Wel I am a fan of interstellar civilization but I don't think it is possible without genetic engineering our own species first.

So I say Transhumanism.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by CurtCSince getting out, with our frail little bodies so dependent on the protections of the Earth, is so unlikely, "die" seems to be the only choice.
I think that technology will allow us to build huge multigeneration arks without changing our bodies. They will let us get out. Of course, we might also change our bodies to help us get out.

If we limit the discussion to 10,000 years, I think we can make it that long. For my "natural catastrophe" answer, I was thinking more like a million years.Yes, I was thinking millions of years. I still expect us to get out of the solar system but I would not expect anything resembing an instellar civilization - just a few outposts. We will survive that long within the solar system.

CBL

[Correa Neto]

I think we will see two or three of the options. I will discard the catastrophist possiblities, since I am trying to be (possibly a naive) optimist regarding our species future (blame it on my son -or daughter-, scheduled to arrive in late October/early November).

I think that in 10Ky we will have upgrade ourselves, but by genetic manipulation and artificial implants. I think that Homo Sapiens, as it is today, will be slowly substitued by these improved humans. Will such an upgraded human be still considered as a Homo Sapiens? Well, they will be the ones who will decide it. I think chances are they will still consider themselves as humans.

I also think we will become in 10Ky at least an interplanetary civilization. And that genetic manipulation, as well as artificial implants will be necessary for this next step. Its not far-fetched to imagine that such improved humans will have lifespans quite larger than ours, so an interstellar trip even without FTL speeds will not be such a challenge. However, if this will be enough to start colonies around another stars, I´m not sure. Perhaps at least part of us will evolve in to a nomadic civilization, living inside gigantic spacecraft, spending some thousand years here and there will develop (that would be my choice, if I could).

I also think we´ll reach some technological plateau at some point. When and where, I don´t have a clue, but I guess it will be before all the above technologies are achieved.

It is possible to speculate that if such a diaspore of improved humans happen, without FTL travel, eventually there will be speciation, since probably different strategies will be adopted. Then the question becomes, will the integrants of Zeta Reticulii (pun intended) colony of improved humans consider those others living in colony ships as still being human?

[espritch]

You forgot the "Driven to extinction in the wild due to popularity as pets amoung the Giant Crab People of Zorgon 5" option. Of course our descendents will be much cuter as a result of selective breeding for big eyes, small size, and fur.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by espritch
You forgot the "Driven to extinction in the wild due to popularity as pets amoung the Giant Crab People of Zorgon 5" option. Of course our descendents will be much cuter as a result of selective breeding for big eyes, small size, and fur.

Catgirls?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I voted "transhuman", since I think we'll be able to create organisms superior to modern humans within hundreds of years, not thousands.

The odds are good that we'll achieve technological maturity long before any cosmic disaster wipes out life on earth. Technology advances exponentially, so it will be a few centuries at most before the rate of change approaches infinity and we hit whatever physical limits the universe will impose on us.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I voted "transhuman", since I think we'll be able to create organisms superior to modern humans within hundreds of years, not thousands.


That we will and soon if not now. But at what point do the new humans become superior to modern humans?

We're already playing with designer genes at the plant/animal level and to a very limited extent at the human level. It will start by selecting the childs eye/hair color within limits. Level/hue of skin pigmentation too, I suppose. Height soon follows. Bone structure, muscle density, etc, are going to be options. Eliminating genetic defects will certainly progress in parallel with this. Pretty much like the movie Gattaca (which gave such engineering a bad rap, imo). We'll progress from there to engineering slightly higher intellegence and/or thicker chests for guys, 'fluffier' breasts for girls. Whatever happens to be long-term trendy. Longer penises, tighter viginas, whatever. Within three-hundred years a great-great-grandma wouldn't even recognise their great-great-grandchild as being human if confronted with them out-of-the-blue. Great-great-great-grandma died last week so her opinion doesn't really count.

[Tez]

Originally posted by toddjh
Now that I think about it, my question is a bit flawed. Obviously, if you go far enough ahead, we'll go extinct in the heat death of the universe no matter how well we've done up until that point, and that will be our eventual fate. There needs to be a time limit imposed to establish a context.

Does, say, the next 10,000 years sound good? That seems like enough time to make it clear which route we're headed without getting too far into the abstract future.

Jeremy

Not necessarily. If you have access to it, grab Freeman Dyson's article:

"Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe."

Reviews of Modern Physics, volume 51, page 447 (1979)

I dont have time to summarize it, but that heat death is not necessarily the end is one of his arguments.

It was an influential article on me. As does Dyson, I started feeling claustrophobic when I thought about the possibility the universe is closed. Of course we could still be advanced enough to burst it open, but current data is such that the universe looks open anyway - no need to apply for funding for such things yet...

BTW, a desperate desire to see what awaits mankind (well, life in general) is the main reason I wish I could truly believe I had an immortal soul...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tez
Not necessarily. If you have access to it, grab Freeman Dyson's article:
"Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe."
Reviews of Modern Physics, volume 51, page 447 (1979)

I dont have time to summarize it, but that heat death is not necessarily the end is one of his arguments.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to look it up. It reminds me of an argument I've had rolling around in my head for a few years, that an open universe might imply something similar to an afterlife. I think I even posted a thread about it here, many moons ago.

It was an influential article on me. As does Dyson, I started feeling claustrophobic when I thought about the possibility the universe is closed. Of course we could still be advanced enough to burst it open, but current data is such that the universe looks open anyway - no need to apply for funding for such things yet...

I feel that way, too, but I think it's pretty silly. Even if the universe is closed, the Big Crunch would be, what, trillions of years away at minimum? And the universe contains a correspondingly large number of galaxies, so it's not like we'd get bored. I think trying to plan out the future to that degree is overkill. :)

Jeremy

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Technology advances exponentially, so it will be a few centuries at most before the rate of change approaches infinity and we hit whatever physical limits the universe will impose on us.

That only applies when population and available energy is exponentially as well.

And currect trends are showing that this might not be the case.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
That only applies when population and available energy is exponentially as well.

And currect trends are showing that this might not be the case.

I think you are mistaken for several reasons but I don't want to derail the thread.

[Peskanov]

I think these two options should be combined:

• Extinction due to war - We blow ourselves up, gas ourselves, release a virulent bioweapon, what have you. Any form of extinction which results from violent confrontation.

• Extinction due to technological catastrophe - That black hole we created in the lab doesn't seem like such a bright idea now, does it??


...because the creation of superweapons is the real danger. It doesn't matter what triggers the weapon after all, a war or terrorism or error or whatever.
In the cuba crisis we nearly started an atomic warm, but atomic weapons are very expensive and quite rare.
Nanotechnology, biotechnology, are much more powerful than atomic weapons by far. A well designed nano-bug could destroy a whole biosphere without much problem. The destructive options of artificial life forms are infinite. And the cost of creating and producing them, are very much like computers and software: the real cost is VERY cheap. One day computing technology seemed only avalaible for superpowers. Today anybody has yesterday's supercomputer in his desk. Also software is cheaper every day.
The hardware and software tools needed to manipulate the nanotechnology realm are expensive today, but potentially they could reach near free status.
I reckon I think we will not pass this test. Mankind is still very inmature to handle such tools.

[DaChew]

The Fighting Marvins from the Martian City Reagantown will win Super Bowl MMMDXXV. (They will beat the spread).