Make predictions about unknown things so future people can laugh at us

Started by Legend, Jul 10, 2019, 04:18 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

Watched a pbs show about balloon flights and pre rocket ventures to the edge of space. They were really worried about cosmic rays for example. Also for a while people thought Earth might be hollow, that Mars had canals, and so forth.


So what things do you think are true that might end up making you look silly?

I think low gravity is probably fine. 1g is great and 0g has some issues that extend beyond needing extra exercise. In between we don't know yet. I'd bet that even just .1g is enough to be fine. In reality anything below 1g might be really bad so only time will tell.

I also think space radiation is probably fine. Sheilds are needed during specific events but ambient exposure will end up not being that bad.


I believe the most likely answer to the fermi paradox is that their is a great filter of sorts between simple prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Celluar life like we understand it might be universal in a sense and develop easily under lots of conditions. Advancing from that is the hard part. We are first through the gate in our area and there just isn't complex life beyond us for billions of light years. With the speed of light being so slow and the universe being alone, almost every species would feel alone. I really love the concept of non cell based beings but they seemingly must be super rare.


kitler53

i predict that within my life time climate change will cause an environmental disaster large enough to cause mass migration away from the coasts and/or wide spread famine when crops fail globally,.. then obviously there will be war fighting over the remaining resources,.. thus the collapse of modern society,.. which will clearly kill billions of people that don't know how to survive in a world without grocery stores.  

many people think we are strong because of our technology advancements.  i disagree,.. humanity has never been weaker.  we are too dependent on technology, too specialized.   we've seen strong societies fail before.  we'll see them fail again.
       

Xevross

i predict that within my life time climate change will cause an environmental disaster large enough to cause mass migration away from the coasts and/or wide spread famine when crops fail globally,.. then obviously there will be war fighting over the remaining resources,.. thus the collapse of modern society,.. which will clearly kill billions of people that don't know how to survive in a world without grocery stores.  

many people think we are strong because of our technology advancements.  i disagree,.. humanity has never been weaker.  we are too dependent on technology, too specialized.   we've seen strong societies fail before.  we'll see them fail again.
Yeah that's gonna happen, as someone who has kinda studied climate change (a little bit) I think mass migration due to climate change isn't so far away, 50 years max.

Legend

It's really important that we do what we can to combat climate change in a sustainable way, but I think by that point massive engineering projects would become financially viable and cheaper than other alternatives. A partial solar shade could be constructed between the Earth and the Sun for less than a trillion dollars for example. If we have fuel production on the Moon by then, then it could even be cheaper than the International Space Station.

kitler53

It's really important that we do what we can to combat climate change in a sustainable way, but I think by that point massive engineering projects would become financially viable and cheaper than other alternatives. A partial solar shade could be constructed between the Earth and the Sun for less than a trillion dollars for example. If we have fuel production on the Moon by then, then it could even be cheaper than the International Space Station.
oh please, you give humanity too much credit.  i project like that would require world wide cooperation.  humans would rather die than work together with someone who speaks another language, has a different skin color, wears a different kind of clothes.

combating climate change could easily be solved today but because of the "prisoner's dilemma" we don't and we won't no matter how bad it gets.
       

the-pi-guy

oh please, you give humanity too much credit.  i project like that would require world wide cooperation.  humans would rather die than work together with someone who speaks another language, has a different skin color, wears a different kind of clothes.

combating climate change could easily be solved today but because of the "prisoner's dilemma" we don't and we won't no matter how bad it gets.
I don't think the prisoners dilemma is quite it.  
Itd be more like if one of the prisoners insisted that the prison wasn't real and even if it was, it's not worth the cost to worry about it

Legend

oh please, you give humanity too much credit.  i project like that would require world wide cooperation.  humans would rather die than work together with someone who speaks another language, has a different skin color, wears a different kind of clothes.

combating climate change could easily be solved today but because of the "prisoner's dilemma" we don't and we won't no matter how bad it gets.
Giving humanity credit would be expecting climate change to be solved while it is still a "looming" threat. This is more about people looking after their own self interests after climate change starts seriously hurting their businesses.

Also a trillion dollars is nothing. World wide cooperation would not be needed, at least for this specific example. Spin satellite production as a jobs program with different parts built in different states and it'd be easy to fund it like the current SLS rocket. The ISS only included other countries for political reasons. Cost wise the US paid for the majority of it anyway. The US is also set to already have the capacity for this before such a measure would be needed. SpaceX, Amazon, OneWeb, and a few other companies are launching thousands of satellites over the next decade to create modern space internet. The massive scale of these operations is of similar magnitude to a partial solar shade, just in low earth orbit instead of at L1. Just for the sake of expressing how achievable a partial solar shade is, Jeff Bezos could personally fund the entire operation if his rocket company and Amazon continue down their current paths.


I'm optimistic so I hope we'll avoid reaching a point where such a measure is needed, but just within the past decade this concept has gone from laughable future tech to just around the corner tech.

kitler53

I don't think the prisoners dilemma is quite it.  
Itd be more like if one of the prisoners insisted that the prison wasn't real and even if it was, it's not worth the cost to worry about it
the prisoners dilemma is just a was to highlight how a ration person may come to make an irrational decision.  collaborating is the rational decision that is beneficial to both parties but most will choose not to collaborate out of fear that the other party may benefit at their expense.  

it is exactly the reason things like the paris climate accord won't be followed.  we'd all be better off if we all committee to those regulations but everyone fears that they'll be the only one to impose the restictions hurting their own economy to the benefit of others. 
       

Dr. Pezus

Elon Musk will be the first memelord president

Legend

Continuing the climate change talk.

It's Worse Than You Think - Lower Emissions, Higher Ground - Andrew Yang for President

@kitler53 what do you think of this plan? It seems like a pretty good approach that reflects both of our viewpoints. Talks about literally moving to higher ground but also investing in geoengineering as a failsafe.

kitler53

Continuing the climate change talk.

It's Worse Than You Think - Lower Emissions, Higher Ground - Andrew Yang for President

@kitler53 what do you think of this plan? It seems like a pretty good approach that reflects both of our viewpoints. Talks about literally moving to higher ground but also investing in geoengineering as a failsafe.
1. any constitutional admendment is really hard to pass, almost impossible.  his propsal lacks any substaintial idea anyways thus making it legally unenforcable. 

2. our government lacks any clear way to force people to move to higher ground.  the only way is for the government to buy the land.  that would cost millions of billions of dollars and thus impossible. 
we do need to move inland but the only real cost is to modify our disaster relief funding to not provide any funding to land within 1 foot of sea level.  that way private citizen take a loss on their lands when disasters loose their investment.  
that will be wildly popular too.......

3. finally, "innovation" isn't really a think you can enforce.  all you can really do is try to provide economic incentives for private industry to change. 
a. remove all substities for oil/gas/beef. 
b. federal gov isn't allowed to sales tax but call on state govs to tax these industies. 
c. renew subsidizes in wind/solar that republican allowed to lapse 

4. finally, his plan should include some effort to expand the national park and wildlife preserves to put more land back to nautual use.  industry lacks the discipline to accept simple truths like over fishing means you'll catch less fish next year untill your cash crop is extinct and your bankrupt.  industry is too short sided and need tougher regulation to protect our wildlife. 



but the really bitter truth is we need world war 3 to start.  war is actually fantastic for the environment because industry can't work in unstable regions and people can't over-consume.  if the planet is going to survive we need to kill each other in overwhleming numbers.  
       

Dr. Pezus

1. any constitutional admendment is really hard to pass, almost impossible.  his propsal lacks any substaintial idea anyways thus making it legally unenforcable.

2. our government lacks any clear way to force people to move to higher ground.  the only way is for the government to buy the land.  that would cost millions of billions of dollars and thus impossible.
we do need to move inland but the only real cost is to modify our disaster relief funding to not provide any funding to land within 1 foot of sea level.  that way private citizen take a loss on their lands when disasters loose their investment.  
that will be wildly popular too.......

3. finally, "innovation" isn't really a think you can enforce.  all you can really do is try to provide economic incentives for private industry to change.
a. remove all substities for oil/gas/beef.
b. federal gov isn't allowed to sales tax but call on state govs to tax these industies.
c. renew subsidizes in wind/solar that republican allowed to lapse

4. finally, his plan should include some effort to expand the national park and wildlife preserves to put more land back to nautual use.  industry lacks the discipline to accept simple truths like over fishing means you'll catch less fish next year untill your cash crop is extinct and your bankrupt.  industry is too short sided and need tougher regulation to protect our wildlife.



but the really bitter truth is we need world war 3 to start.  war is actually fantastic for the environment because industry can't work in unstable regions and people can't over-consume.  if the planet is going to survive we need to kill each other in overwhleming numbers.  
Thanos was right

Legend

Thanos was right
Thanos had possibly the stupidest plan ever lol.

1. any constitutional admendment is really hard to pass, almost impossible.  his propsal lacks any substaintial idea anyways thus making it legally unenforcable.

2. our government lacks any clear way to force people to move to higher ground.  the only way is for the government to buy the land.  that would cost millions of billions of dollars and thus impossible.
we do need to move inland but the only real cost is to modify our disaster relief funding to not provide any funding to land within 1 foot of sea level.  that way private citizen take a loss on their lands when disasters loose their investment.  
that will be wildly popular too.......

3. finally, "innovation" isn't really a think you can enforce.  all you can really do is try to provide economic incentives for private industry to change.
a. remove all substities for oil/gas/beef.
b. federal gov isn't allowed to sales tax but call on state govs to tax these industies.
c. renew subsidizes in wind/solar that republican allowed to lapse

4. finally, his plan should include some effort to expand the national park and wildlife preserves to put more land back to nautual use.  industry lacks the discipline to accept simple truths like over fishing means you'll catch less fish next year untill your cash crop is extinct and your bankrupt.  industry is too short sided and need tougher regulation to protect our wildlife.



but the really bitter truth is we need world war 3 to start.  war is actually fantastic for the environment because industry can't work in unstable regions and people can't over-consume.  if the planet is going to survive we need to kill each other in overwhleming numbers.  
1. Passing an amendment isn't paramount to the plan, just a way to make it less likely for shifting political climates to about face on climate issues. Not sure how that would be legally unenforceable.

2. Moving shouldn't be forced imo. This plans solution is similar to what you are suggesting:
Quote
Make up to $40 billion available in subsidies, grants, and low-interest loans to individuals who wish to elevate or relocate their homes, or move to higher ground.

Reevaluate the way FEMA and the NFIP determine where structures can be rebuilt, taking a stricter stance against rebuilding in danger zones.
3. The plan also offers similar solutions. Stop oil subsidies, transition farm subsidies to prioritise healthier methods, implement a carbon tax, funding for research, etc.

4. Yup the plan includes this too. Not related to this plan, but an interesting idea I saw was treating land kinda like renting instead of buying. Make the tenant pay for any damages to the land when they move out/sell.

the-pi-guy

Aug 27, 2019, 01:36 AM Last Edit: Aug 27, 2019, 01:37 AM by the-pi-guy
1. any constitutional admendment is really hard to pass, almost impossible.  his propsal lacks any substaintial idea anyways thus making it legally unenforcable.

2. our government lacks any clear way to force people to move to higher ground.  the only way is for the government to buy the land.  that would cost millions of billions of dollars and thus impossible.
we do need to move inland but the only real cost is to modify our disaster relief funding to not provide any funding to land within 1 foot of sea level.  that way private citizen take a loss on their lands when disasters loose their investment.  
that will be wildly popular too.......

3. finally, "innovation" isn't really a think you can enforce.  all you can really do is try to provide economic incentives for private industry to change.
a. remove all substities for oil/gas/beef.
b. federal gov isn't allowed to sales tax but call on state govs to tax these industies.
c. renew subsidizes in wind/solar that republican allowed to lapse

4. finally, his plan should include some effort to expand the national park and wildlife preserves to put more land back to nautual use.  industry lacks the discipline to accept simple truths like over fishing means you'll catch less fish next year untill your cash crop is extinct and your bankrupt.  industry is too short sided and need tougher regulation to protect our wildlife.



but the really bitter truth is we need world war 3 to start.  war is actually fantastic for the environment because industry can't work in unstable regions and people can't over-consume.  if the planet is going to survive we need to kill each other in overwhleming numbers.  
What do you think of Bernie's plan?  

Thanos had possibly the stupidest plan ever lol
Honestly yes.  

On the one hand, they did cool stuff with it.  
On the other hand, the plan doesn't even make sense.  

kitler53

What do you think of Bernie's plan?  
Honestly yes.  

On the one hand, they did cool stuff with it.  
On the other hand, the plan doesn't even make sense.  
i'm not particularly informed on the details of bernie's plan.   every democrat candidate is miles better then any republican (especially trump) and also miles behind where I wish we were.  as my original post in this thread implies,.. i'm very concerned with the health of this planet.  i'm convinced that my children will die from the negative impacts of climate change either directly (famine) or indirectly (war).  

...but i don't like bernie.  personally i like kamala and pete but i'll probably end up supporting warren in the primaries and bernie and biden are my least favorite candidates.  i'll support whatever democrate wins the nomination in the general election.