How do you see life on earth in 2054 ? (1 Viewer)

[Scott Thomas]

Soylent Green will be the worlds most popular food

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Tony Hochard wrote:

First of all, it's not just Southern California. That's just the area that's gotten a lot of the press on the issue (as on many other issues). There are facilities elsewhere in the country and there will be more. They may not bother to advertise themselves to the public at large and thereby court media attention, but they will be there because there's a demand for what they claim to offer.
I'm not sure there's anything particularly "Hitlerian" about the breeding program. These clinics exist for the same reason that yuppie types with money (or lots of credit, or both) in the US (and Western Europe???) try to place their young children in "advanced" programs at the earliest age possible: to get a competitive edge, for people to get the best they think they can get for themselves. (Isn't that what underlies the controversy about to CONSUME/NOT CONSUME in this thread???)
If there is "fault" to be found or "blame" to be placed for the array of phenotypic traits that tends to be sought after in these places---and that would be highly debatable in any event---, I don't believe it belongs either with the clinics or with some long dead foreign dictator. The demand is only an expression of cultural values---ours as a society.
If we could tomorrow snap our fingers and end all material want in the world's vast population, I think we would find that there would still be strife, still be enmity. As I said before, striving -----> competition -----> conflict -----> enmity among men. They are to my mind concomitants (necessary correlates).
What I---or you, for that matter---think about these matters is irrelevant. They will be.

 

[David Susilo]

at the rate surround-sound is progressing, we will have 2048.2 DD.

DD and DTS debate still goes on

THX equals low-quality reproduction... hmmm is it 2054 already?

 

[Max Leung]

The demand is only an expression of cultural values---ours as a society.

I would word this more strongly:

"The demand is only an expression of human nature."

 

[Todd Hochard]

I'm sure all the children in those desperately poor countries with bloated bellies and wasting diseases and no prospect for gainful employment all their (extended) lives will agree with you. Agony is better than oblivion, no doubt.

...so long as you realize that there are less of these children (yet still too many, of course) than there ever has been. And I fully expect that trend (of reducing starvation) to continue.
Competition is, of course, human nature. But, I'm not sure what your point is, anymore. Is it "we are all doomed, regardless?" I simply don't believe that. Fifty years from now, I feel that, as a whole, things will be better than they are now.
Todd (never been called Tony before )

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Todd Hochard wrote:

Quote:

At the point I wrote that line I had in mind the culture-specific phenotypic traits often sought-after in some of the (in)famous California "genius" sperm banks (although doubtless sought elsewhere as well), which another poster had suggested was "Hitlerian". Such would be genes for "blue" eyes, for example.
If a society prizes "blue" eyes such that many people in it try to attain them through cosmetic artifices (like tinted contact lenses) or through genetic manipulation of unborn offspring, one doesn't credit (or blame) a Hitler or a clinic, does one? It's the society at large. You don't consider that to be "human nature", do you?

 

[Todd Hochard]

I don't know what your definition of "ever" is but my sense is that there are many more of such children simply because of the huge swells in the populations of those places without the corrections that high infant-mortality rates---and, in fact, high mortality rates, in general---which outside so-called do-gooders work fervently to lower, represent (as much as Americans don't like to think in those terms). The percentages may well be down from, say, 20 years ago, but the numbers can only be higher as the population swells geometrically.

So, then, your contention is that it's better to be dead, than simply hungry? This argument seems decidedly in your favor, since you are obviously not among the hungry/dying.

So, is your argument for population control, that it needs to be legislated (by the more fortunate- you and I- upon the less fortunate, according to the connotation of your post), or that it will take care of itself? I agree that the latter probably will happen, but not in the gloomy manner you suggest above.

Todd

 

[Max Leung]

If a society prizes "blue" eyes such that many people in it try to attain them through cosmetic artifices (like tinted contact lenses) or through genetic manipulation of unborn offspring, one doesn't credit (or blame) a Hitler or a clinic, does one? It's the society at large. You don't consider that to be "human nature", do you?

Yep I certainly do...animals change their strategies for survival and reproduction as the environment changes. Humans are no different...they want the best for their offspring, and will achieve that with the best tools available at that time (obviously, those that don't won't be as successful). When people perceive that blonde and blue-eyed individuals tend to be more successful in life, then it is natural for people to want those attributes, either for themselves (contact lenses, dyed hair) or their offspring (genetic manipulation, or marrying a blue-eyed and blonde man/woman). This desire is always present, but the expression of this desire will be different for each culture (nose-rings, philanthropy, excellence in sports, etc).
Sidenote: One could make a great case that, in a society where the basic needs are met for nearly everyone, then people will focus more on social/sexual status (expensive/bigger cars or homes, well-toned body, access to beautiful women, custom-tailored Italian suits, successful music performer, and so on) in the great evolutionary game of sexual selection.
But then I'm coming from the "society is a product of human nature, and human nature is also shaped by society" corner of the room. In other words, we're saying the same things.

 

[Edwin-S]

The Earth will be run by some kind of super smart monkeys.
------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't already run by monkeys? Okay, we may not be super smart but the way we act as a species, you would think we had just come down from the trees!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Actually on an evolutionary time scale the tree statement is probably pretty accurate.
------------------------------------------------------------
Women will rule and men will just be kept around for reproductive purposes (until we think of a better way).
------------------------------------------------------------
You mean they aren't already?! Then what is with all these married guys I see around, who only seem to know three phrases:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Yes, Dear
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. No, Dear
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Right away, Dear
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Technology will no longer be an intimidating element of life now that all the previous generations who were never raised alongside the technology will already be dead by then.
------------------------------------------------------------
This one definitely will never come to pass. Technology will always be intimidating to whatever generation it impacts upon. Human beings have always been raised along side technology.
Bones used as clubs is technology. Tell Oogla the neanderthal that the asses's jawbone laid across his dome wasn't an intimidating element.
Future technology is going to be no less intimidating to the people it effects than it does today. When the Japanese finally perfect humanoid robots that can replace anyone.....even the big brains that devise them.......are you going to tell me that the massive dislocations that creates isn't going to intimidate people?
Which leads to the future as we will know it. The world as depicted in the Terminator movies may not be so farfetched.
In between warring with the machines, we will go back to our ageold favorite sport........warring with each other.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

When the Japanese finally perfect humanoid robots that can replace anyone.....even the big brains that devise them.......are you going to tell me that the massive dislocations that creates isn't going to intimidate people?

We have had "Robbie the Robot" characters in sci-fi books and movies for years. It would be a major stretch for my imagination to see something like a humanoid robot being anything but a quaint curiosity in the future. I can't imagine what they could do that other uses of computers couldn't do a 1000 times more effectively.

 

[RobertR]

Technology will no longer be an intimidating element of life now that all the previous generations who were never raised alongside the technology will already be dead by then.
------------------------------------------------------------

This one definitely will never come to pass. Technology will always be intimidating to whatever generation it impacts upon.

I think both of you are right and both of you are wrong. A given technology will intimidate adults when it's introduced as something they didn't grow up with. However, it will NOT intimidate those who grow up AFTER it's introduced (NO one is intimidated by, say, television or the (land line based) telephone in today's society). If a kid grows up in a society that already has humanoid robots, he will accept their existence as being perfectly normal and NOT intimidating, just as today's kids accept the Internet as being normal.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Todd Hochard wrote:


Quote:



So, is your argument for population control, that it needs to be legislated (by the more fortunate- you and I- upon the less fortunate, according to the connotation of your post), or that it will take care of itself?






My argument is that population is going to be managed in one way or other (out of necessity). Analogies are warned against in logic class, but I will nevertheless avail myself of one here and take my chances, since I think it is illustrative.

In the face of even the prospect of a raging fire we can choose to deal with it in a number (a series, actually) of successively less pleasant ways.

avoidance

(1) an agnostic strategy or "ostrichitis": ignore it as if it doesn't and/or never will exist, or, at least, never concern us. (Our (U.S.) leadership seems to have chosen this approach for the past two decades.)


confrontation

(2) prevention strategy or, more apt(?) here, prophylaxis ("A stitch in time . . . "). This would mean reasoned, planned, and, yes, systematic contraceptive (or even other) birth control.
(3) containment strategy: bottleneck the problem till it smothers itself. Good luck!
(4) extinction strategy eradicate the problem from its (presumed) source. And, as I said previously, war is the ultimate "population management" when all else has been disregarded or attempted and failed.

It will come one way or the other. I prefer 2, but at this late stage think only 2 and 3 in tandem have a chance of preventing #4.

 

[Mike__D]

We'll never see the year 2054. One of the many, uncharted Earth crossing asteriods will finally impact us. :p)

 

[Ashley Seymour]

My argument is that population is going to be managed in one way or other (out of necessity). Analogies are warned against in logic class, but I will nevertheless avail myself of one here and take my chances, since I think it is illustrative.

You state that population is going to be managed, but then give only a few brief methods that all are based on a central authority exercising control. You also don't define how population growth is a problem, to what degree that it is and what are the consequences for "excessive" growth.

I don't mean to argue that a growing world population may not prove to have negative consequences on the quality of human life and to other species on the planet, but there seems to be little discussion of the problem. This forum is certainly too brief to give it justice.

 

[Josh Lowe]

According to the panda people of the WWF (not the pro wrestling outfit, the envirowhacko outfit that sued the WWF into changing its name to the WWE), the earth will be uninhabitable just before 2054.

So I guess we won't have to worry about fossil fuel replacements, we'll all be dead anyway.

 

[Charles J P]

There will have been at least one African-american male or female President of the United States.

Lets not be silly.
How do I see life on earth in 2054? Well, there will still be grass and trees and wild animals. The town I grew up in will still have less than 200 people. We will still drive "cars" but there will be advances in guidance, safety and efficiency. Whether they still run on gas or some other substance, or are hybrid I dont know. Cities will be overpopulated, but by cultural choice. Anyone who thinks that there is not enough "room" on this planet for more people, apperently hasnt driven through Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, or Montana.

 

[Mike__D]

Hmmmm... looks like 2019 will be an interesting year.
Space Rock on collision course
Just a few posts up a make a joke, and now found this story. Although scientists say there is a huge margin of error and need time to chart it's orbit.

 

[Max Leung]

A World Without Water
I was serious when I talked about war between Canada and the US, over water! And boy I hate being right!

, which, under existing the North American Free Trade Agreement, is perfectly legitimate.

Emphasis mine.
(I'm posting here because I didn't want to start a new thread that would guarantee political argument! Besides, it fits the theme of this thread nicely!)
The point is that water is going to be a mega-issue in the coming years, and have no intention of talking politics.

 

[Grant B]

President Jenna Bush gets forced out of office after a sex scandal involving a clone and a cigar. Maybe it was the democrats using her family's motto (read my lips?!?) on her.
Too bad she never lived up to her promise of getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Maybe her daughter Georgette will

 

[Max Leung]

I like the Space Ghost reference.