Over the next hundred years are we more likely to destroy ourselves or reach a type one civilization?

Over the next hundred years are we more likely to destroy ourselves or reach a type one civilization?

In the next hundred years very little will change at all. Maybe some shit like VR will become more affordable and some automation but it's far from being what pop-sci infographics about "the next 100 years" tell us it will be like. I'd say we're at least dozens of millions of years from being a type 1 civ. And there's always a chance that anyday a global thermonuclear war or economic crisis can throw us back to stone age.

I'm going with neither

Look at how much Science and Technology have evolved in the past 100 years, the age of information is taking over right now.. and you really believe we're not going to change that much over the next hundred years?

it's not possible to be a type 1 civilization (probability zero)
it's possible that we'll destroy ourselves (probability < zero)
i hope that answers your question

>Look at how much Science and Technology have evolved in the past 100 years,
Read a History book. The difference between 2015 and 1915 is lesser than the difference between 1885 and 1785. Since the Middle Ages people have entertained the idea that the world would become an utopia within their lifetimes, purely for psychological reasons.
>and you really believe we're not going to change that much over the next hundred years?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that any science fiction crap you have heard about - wormholes, AI, quantum computing, quantum communication, nano machines, immortality, asteroid mining, etc - will become reality. Not in 100 years. Not in a trillion years. These things have been researched on since the 60s and so far nothing has been achieved on any of those. Difference is that back then there wasn't any internet journalism spreading fake news or YouTube channels like Vsauce.

>Look at how much Science and Technology have evolved in the past 100 years
99% of electric generation is done with a fucking steam engine, you idiot
almost nothing has changed. The fact that you don't understand this indicates how poorly informed and how little understanding you actually have.

you fucking idiot futurists never cease to amaze me with your naivety
you think that just because battery technology has improved a little bit that there's some glorious future where you can store infinite energy in a cell the size of your thumb
Ever heard of diminishing returns? Ever done some math? Got two neurons to rub together? Holy fucking SHIT. Stop watching popsci garbage and reading science fiction and thinking about "what could be" and learn about what IS. What is is all there's ever going to be, moron. Humans aren't amazing creators devising clever ways to circumvent the laws of nature. We barely knew what the laws of nature were until 50 years ago. And you still think it's possible to build a fucking megastructure capable of harnessing all of the sun's energy? There isn't even enough material in the fucking solar system to do that. HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

The computer was the last major invention which pushed the human race a significant step further.

But now we are at a point where Moors law is pretty much dead (just look how tiny our transistors already are, there is very little room for improvement) and we can not expect to advance just as a result of increased processing speeds. This means that we will not see major revolutions just a steady and slow climb in technology that will come to a stop in a few decades.

And what are we supposed to do after that? We already have left the times behind where a lone "inventor" could change the world and there is absolutely nothing on the horizon that could make a significant difference in the advancement of the human race.

>The computer was the last major invention which pushed the human race a significant step further.
The internet definitely counts as a major invention separate from computers.
>We already have left the times behind where a lone "inventor" could change the world and there is absolutely nothing on the horizon that could make a significant difference in the advancement of the human race.
People probably said the same thing in the 40's before computers were a thing. Even in the 50's and 60's, no one ever imagined that computers would be as important as they are now. Same thing goes for the internet in the 80s and 90s. And pretty much every other invention mind you.
There will still be new inventions that change the world. I just don't know what they'll be yet, because if I did I'd be fucking rich.

y u so mad tho?

>The internet definitely counts as a major invention separate from computers.
I counted them together, but that is pretty much irrelevant.
>People probably said the same thing in the 40's before computers were a thing. Even in the 50's and 60's, no one ever imagined that computers would be as important as they are now. Same thing goes for the internet in the 80s and 90s. And pretty much every other invention mind you.
That is just plain wrong. Even computers were not build by one person, it was an effort by many people, from Turing to Zuse.

And with the current level of our understanding of science it is impossible for one human to know enough about different fields to put them together into one "invention".

It sounds pretty absurd that you argue otherwise. Almost all of "recent" history proves you wrong and I don't know what else I could say, but just look at the mountain of physics that happens in the last decades, Einstein was not a lone scientist neither were any other great physicists of his time.

The time where one person could achieve something like a major invention has passed.

>There will still be new inventions that change the world. I just don't know what they'll be yet, because if I did I'd be fucking rich.
There very well might be. But they will take thousands of years to reach.
I don't understand where your optimism comes from when looking at the state of modern science.

Energy is overrated.
So is human ability to extinguish itself.

>100 years

neither what the fuck are you smoking

muh transistor size decreases by a factor of 2 every x years

muh transistors will one day be smaller than an electron

when that heppens, flying cars and infinite energy and shieet

it blows my mind that people can not comprehend the fact that certain things are just not possible (ie FTL travel).

I'm going with human extinction in the next 50 years.

We are on the verge of reaching the TYPE 3 civilization, just you wait user

It's funny how people who criticize "pop-sci" tend to be insufferably ignorant. It's as if criticizing the notion of people taking an interest in the natural world without wanting to be scientists is indicative of stupidity and a really terrible personality.

>at least dozens of millions of years

A hilariously arbitrary time scale. You were trying to sound smart and skeptical and you failed miserably, to the point of parody. Go back to pol

F U S I O N , O H B A B Y

>99% of electric generation is done with a fucking steam engine, you idiot
>almost nothing has changed. The fact that you don't understand this indicates how poorly informed and how little understanding you actually have.
You can't see any of the differences between the Savery steam engine and a nuclear power plant?

we'll be less likely to reach an older civilization.

Quantum computing.

Google already has a working quantum computer with, if I'm not mistaking, 49 cubits. They promise quantum supremacy by the end of this year.

Quantum computing will take over in the next 5, maximum 10 years.

Screenshot this if you want to.

>going full retard for science
Topkeks

roasted

Although I am not as optimistic as you, keep in mind that quantum computers will just boost or computing performance(power). In general, they aren't capable of doing things classical computers can't(they can break assymetric cryptography, solve traveling salesman problem, etc)

The thing is, we don't NEED transistor size to decrease by half every two years for progress to remain relatively linear or maybe even perpetually increasing growth.

Every inch of progress that's made in one field will increase the potential for development in other fields.

For example a cellphone required that batteries and processors become small enough to fit in a convenient size.

Nominally looking all that changed after cellphones became widespread compared to before was that its potential components got just a little bit smaller. By itself it may have been just a small change but it was a critical requirement for the next leap. Fast forward to now and everyone's carrying a computer with them and is connected to a global network.

I think it's obvious by now that I don't really know much about tech so I may also be wrong, but my point is that we don't NEED processors to become infinitely small or to store infinite amounts of energy. We just need enough progress in one field to start a leap in another and maybe eventually we'll reach our maximum potential, whatever it may be.

This is an interesting discussion but I wonder how does AI fit into it and why hasn't anyone mentioned it yet?

>probability < zero
what?

There needs to be at least one major fundamental paradigm shift to avoid stagnation and decline.

My guess it will be a revolutionary new concept in mathematics. Something so fundamental yet conceptually difficult, that we will need to basically throw out everything we know about maths, from the simplest axioms and proofs, and embrace an entirely new ordering of our world view. Something new that will make a simple statement like 1 + 1 = 2 look childishly naive, primitive and hopelessly inadequate.

From this will flow upheaval in physics, and perhaps the tapping of yet undreamed of energy sources and energy storage.

If not, then a slow descent into the new dark ages, if not extinction.

Well said

In at least 50 to 100 years, war amongst ourselves will stop. And humanity will evolve. Trust me, it's true. Ashtar said it's true.

>Something new that will make a simple statement like 1 + 1 = 2 look childishly naive, primitive and hopelessly inadequate.

I got you covered, user.