It would solve many problems if we could conceive of a monetary system that doesn't demand the exponential increase of credit in order to function. Presumably the only way such a system can be used indefinitely, and not become the penultimate destroyer of worlds (after nukes), is to find new energy to extract at a rate that at least keeps pace with the demand to grow. Something like nuclear fusion may fit the bill but it is always 30yrs away. Ideally we should tie our growth to some basic ecological constraints such that we can easily revert to a steady-state economy as we approach the hard limits of our ability to extract and employ energy. However, our money simply cannot function in a steady state. Bitcoin is not the answer; it is far too energy intensive although its distributed nature should be a feature of any future system.
Posts archived: 28 / 28 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
It would solve many problems if we could conceive of a monetary system that doesn't demand the exponential increase of credit in order to function. Presumably the only way such a system can be used indefinitely, and not become the penultimate destroyer of worlds (after nukes), is to find new energy to extract at a rate that at least keeps pace with the demand to grow. Something like nuclear fusion may fit the bill but it is always 30yrs away. Ideally we should tie our growth to some basic ecological constraints such that we can easily revert to a steady-state economy as we approach the hard limits of our ability to extract and employ energy. However, our money simply cannot function in a steady state. Bitcoin is not the answer; it is far too energy intensive although its distributed nature should be a feature of any future system.
In Back to the Future II they got to 2015 and it's like flying cars and holograms which is funny because it's not at all like that. I think the future of the human race will either be extinction from nuclear fallout or we will "move planets" to Mars or Europa or one of those red dwarf planets far out in space. I definitely don't see humans living on Earth for much longer. 1 or 2 hundred years.
A red dwarf is a type of star... good luck living on there.
I agree. People also might move underwater on the Earth to reduce the population on land...
I doubt that. Humans would rather go to war and kill off a lot of the population. Plus, the population will never get that big on the planet. Whole eco systemso would ccollapse and a mass extinction event would occur. Humans will die out. When the population gets way out of hand it will be limited with reproduction laws. 1 child per family for example.
I think the US will try and take over the world.
Depending on success either of the two scenarios will occur.
1. The US takes over and lays down its new International Law. Which is where everyone in the world gets taxed at a 99% rate, and we are not allowed to reproduce, or if we are, it is only to make new slaves. Unless you are American. Then you do what you want. See the situation in somewhere like Saudi Arabia? You have the insanely oil-rich "Royal Family" and it's many cousins and friends. Then you have the majority of the population, which sadly in an incredibly wealthy country, live like this
[image: gowans.files.wordpress.com]
![[image: gowans.files.wordpress.com]](https://gowans.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/slums-squalor.jpg){kind=link}
And yet the people who "live" here are the people who build all of the extravagent high-rises etc, and are basically forced to "serve" the royal family.
This is what the whole world would look like if the USA had its way.
2. The US tries to take over the world, CHINA decides "**** this" and steamrolls everyone. Some good could come out of this, nuclear war (if the US doesn't nuke China and itself with its "if we can't have it no one can" thinking) would never be a threat from Iran, NK etc because China would just steamroll them also. As much as westerners hate to believe, China is a super intelligent country, living conditions, other than industrial smog, wouldn't actually be bad for us.
For those thinking China couldn't do it, look at the Cold War between the then USSR and the USA. It was a stalemate, not just because of nukes but because of population size.
| Russia: Population | 142,470,272 (July 2014 est.) | China: 1,355,692,576 (July 2014 est.) |
Then look at military members. US has 263,000,000 PEOPLE in the US who are either soldiers already or are fit for service. Both men and women. Huge amount right? Russia has around 120,000,000. These are 2010 figures.
Wow. 263 million.
Care to guess how many people China has both in the military and fit for active service? 1,316,000,000....
Take all of USA's and all of Russias, add them together then double them and still not enough.
China is f**kING HUGE right now and it is only going to get bigger. They only spend 1.5% of their 10's of trillions of GDP on their military and they have 600 million active servicemen(and women).
I think with the significant strain we are already causing on natural resources, we will soon have to build down instead of building up. Simply because there is a height limit on skyscrapers with the wind and the structural supports and stuff. Perhaps we will soon expand underground and underwater.
If the human species want to survive, we will have to leave Earth, and attempt to colonise other planets. Kepler and Project Orion are on the right track...
Economical collapse.
Societal collapse.
Technological collapse.
WW3.
New world (if anything is left after that).
Rebuild.
Rinse.
Repeat x a few 100000 times.
Then, as usual, history repeats itself again and again and again and again....