How advanced of a sci-fi future can we realistically expect?

How advanced of a sci-fi future can we realistically expect?

What's a realistic upper limit to what's actually probable?

Theres only about 3 options:

1. Our affect on the ecosystem and earths habitability causes an extinction event that either kills us or sends us back humdreds of thousands of years

2. Our modern health and reproductive technology negates the evolutionary pressures that made humanity great, plunging us into an idiocracy and leaving us too stupid to maintain higher societies

3. Genetic engineering advances to the point of elevating ourselves as beings. Example: replicating the genes that give birds their extremely dense brains, which could theoretically boost human intelligence by multiplea and creare a division between future humans and modern era comparable to us and chimps.

>2. Our modern health and reproductive technology negates the evolutionary pressures that made humanity great, plunging us into an idiocracy and leaving us too stupid to maintain higher societies
I've worried about this one a lot. If it technology is super successful we doom ourselves as a species in the long run unless we embrace "unethical" genetic modification

What's your timeline on those?

Gods of Asgard are fun.

Our universal peril looks to be weakness of the body, which inevitably leads to become a god to overcome all sorts of limitations of body.

New technologies which we can never predict will be created, completely changing everything.

>Our affect
You mean "effect"

"Affect" is a verb
"Effect" is usually a noun, although can also be a verb (e.g. "to effect change")

But in your sentence you are using "affect" as if it's a noun. But "affect" is never a noun.

So you mean "effect".

By the way, "effect" as a verb means to bring something about. Whereas "affect" as a verb means to change it.

So "to effect change" means to bring about change. Whereas "to affect change" means to change the type of change that is brought about. If you see what I mean.

Read this website and be blown away at what's possible in the next 14000 years.

>orionsarm.com

The face of autism

You're correct but the way you went about it makes you look like a fucking douchebag

in our lifetimes? zero.

I guess I kept making the post longer to make extra points

It's important that people use the English language properly

It's like when people say "less" when they mean "fewer" - e.g. "I'll have less problems", "I'll get less beers". Those are obviously wrong - the correct usage is to say "FEWER problems" and "FEWER beers", because "less" is only used for MASS nouns (things which can't be counted - "money", "air", "water", "wealth" - you can't say "two moneys", or "three airs" - these nouns refer to a mass, rather than countable objects). "Fewer" is used for countable nouns, e.g. "fewer beers", "fewer employees", "fewer problems", etc.

>Our affect on the ecosystem and earths habitability causes an extinction event that either kills us or sends us back humdreds of thousands of years
That is already going to happen thanks to monoculture farming.

See:
Singularityfags are pathetic.

> Sticks and stones
What will happens if Kim senpai ravages American ass with Nukes

Fusion reactor (tokamak,ITER)
Robotics
New agriculture
Nanotechnology

Build massive things, maybe build spacial colonies, but if begin massive lucky to develop before kill planet.

How are you measuring "technology", exactly?

Anyway, you're a fucking idiot. Technology will always develop, so it will actually be like pic related.

There will always be more efficient ways to capture energy. Imagine if we built a Dyson Sphere around every star in the entire universe. We'd still be able to improve on their designs. We'll always be able to improve our habitats, and our modes of transport, etc. There is no fucking theoretical limit to technology you stupid fucking moron.

Your graph says "limit of what's physically possible" - but you do realise we're still discovering things that we never thought were physically possible? Centuries ago, humans would never have thought it's physically possible to put a man on the moon. That whole concept would have blown their minds.

Growing tissue from stem cells in a lab like we do now - people would have thought that was physically impossible not very long ago.

Quantum mechanics seemed physically impossible not long ago. Splitting the atom seemed physically impossible. Relativity seemed physically impossible.

Even if we managed to get a near-perfect understanding of the universe (which I doubt - there is always more to learn), we will always be able to improve our technology. Until we have literal roads - physical roads - connecting every single planet in the universe (700 x 10^18 terrestrial planets, or 10^24 planets in total), then technology can still develop. Do you think we will ever develop PHYSICAL roads between every single one of those planets? And even if we did, we could make them wider, couldn't we?

So like I say - there is, for all practical purposes, no theoretical limit to technological advancement. So shut the fuck up.

Because he a brainlet and a le cool cynical realist

LMAO think about the last time a new technological advancement came about that was practical and had a significant effect on people's daily lives. The smartphone from 2007 right? Ten whole years ago. And we are already having trouble making our computers smaller, more efficient, etc. If we haven't hit a plateau yet it's coming soon. The next ten years will be just like the last ten years in terms of technology: you can expect slightly higher speeds and higher resolutions, but things will be fundamentally the same.

>Technology will always develop, so it will actually be like pic related
Ever heard of the dark ages?

You underestimate humanity's ability to believe stupid shit like religion over science

>dark ages
You mean the thing which we overcame and then developed way better technology, which is getting better and better every day? That thing?

How is it possible to be this stupid?

>How is it possible to be this stupid?
not an argument

Alright here's an argument you fucking moron

You are basically like a guy in the 1930s saying "hey look, sure our cars are getting faster and more aerodynamic, but when was the last time there was a technological advancement which had a significant effect on people's daily lives? THINGS WILL FUNDAMENTALLY BE THE SAME FOREVER!"

Singularityfags should be looking at cultural change first and foremost. You don't need God-AI for a singularity if you have billions of human brains networked together massively, their abilities of informational manipulation enhanced to superhuman levels via computers. We are experiencing a memetic/cultural singularity right now, the reason for the social chaos of the present is social institutions trying to fight against this change due to a survival imperative, and having to resort to ever more extreme measures to do so. This will result in an imminent social singularity, where the Great Firewall of existing institutions that are maladaptive to human well being is broken, and social problems are solved ever more effectively, a self-reinforcing trend as solving social problems provides more power to solving additional ones.

In short, a distributed intelligent system (hive mind) is self-organizing via the internet that doesn't need a singular locus of agency/decision making, and is in fact much more effective without one. This will include an informational immune system that exposes parasitic informational structures and destroys them via the focus of human awareness on their nature. Right now this hive mind is at the intellectual development of an angsty edgelord tweenager.

Except in this case you understood what he meant so your argument is moot. Chill out nigger

>when was the last time there was a technological advancement which had a significant effect on people's daily lives?
Posted on the internet.

So twenty five years ago?

Mate you do realise I was quoting this fucking idiot - - don't you?

And yet, what he was saying was absolutely true. I would admit a significant change to cars, like self driving ones, would be a big difference but it looks like those are far away too.

Internet was made more than 2 decades ago.

these euphoric scifi nerds always crack me up, they get so upset if you even suggest that there's a limit for humanity

>what he was saying was true
That technology isn't going to develop? That nothing is ever going to fundamentally change ever again?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm so glad I'm not this stupid

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>m-muh star wars

.............................what?

time to go back kid

Well, just look at first world countries. That's probably going to be the best example of an advanced future you are going to see, in your lifetime at the very least.
I gotta agree with this chap here. I mean sure there has to be more we can do in terms of scientific progress but I can't honestly say what that is. The only major thing I could see changing much of anything is maybe automation. Not in any major shift in society way or anything, just making a few splashes here and there. Maybe fusion? But still not anything game changing to society. We got a long way to go before some major things happens that changes things. We won't see it, whatever it is.
Can you share what would be some game changer to society has a whole? I can't hazard a guess. The only thing that comes to mind when I think of future technology at this very moment are what really amounts to unneeded luxuries or pleasantries that stem from an abundance of resources. I can't really think of anything game changing or anything. It may sound close minded but maybe we really have reached the limit. Maybe not even out of lack of creativity or genius but simply out of apathy or possibly even out not having a reason to do so. But we do have a long time to tinker about, we aren't going anywhere for a long time, so who knows?

>we really have reached the limit
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're literally like some retard in the 1930s saying "HEY GUYS LOOK AT THESE CARS, THEY'RE THE MOST AMAZING THINGS EVER, THERE'S NO WAY WE WILL EVER ADVANCE BEYOND THIS"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>smartphone
Not all technological advancements are advancements faggot

by the way we're going i don't think any ai thinks we're harmful enough to enslave us

We're reaching the limit not because there isn't anything more advanced. There's plenty of stuff more advanced than what we've got. The problem is that human society has sunk into a state in which there isn't any serious effort being made to reach those things. Research has been increasingly relegated to the private sector, which isn't interested in taking a big risk for dubious gains. Private corporations are much more likely to put all their research resources toward refining consumer products in order to make more money, rather than seeking to invent something truly novel.

Tesla and SpaceX do not reflect this. Maybe you consider them outliers.

The public sector is generally not innovative. The only thing more innovative than the private sector is the public sector at war. RE: all the cool technology that came out of WW1 and 2.

>i deny the nature of language and waste my time instead of actually doing anything or contributing to the thread

Tesla and SpaceX is very heavily government supported. They're unusual because they're able to throw an enormous amount of resources at things that aren't big money makers in the short term.

LIGO tried to measure a signal 11 orders of magnitude below noise, which shouldn't be physically possible.

Compare this to Sumer that lasted for millennia without a single technical advancement.

While private industry might have once been innovative, more recently it has shifted away from R&D and more toward stock buybacks and paying out dividends. Combined with a decline in public spending on research, technological development is likely to stagnate for now.

Seriously don't "hahahaha" everything, because that's the deathrattle of someone who lost an argument, I do think that both sides have valid points, do humans have the potential? Yes but there are surrounding factors that stall progress such as funding, lack of interest and a lack of returns. People are generally more interested in making money and bettering their own lives to focus on actual productive work. Smartphones and the internet are worked on due to their profitability

>i haven't had any new toy in the last 10 days so i'll never have something new ever.
((YOU))

You know what? All the idiots in this thread HAVE TRULY CONVINCED ME!!!!

THEY'RE RIGHT, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO ADVANCE AGAIN!!!!

THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY ANYBODY WORKING ON SELF-LANDING ROCKETS - THAT'S JUST AN ILLUSION!!!!!

NOBODY IS WORKING ON SELF-DRIVING CARS - THAT'S JUST A MYTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOBODY IS WORKING ON GENE-EDITING - THAT'S JUST AN URBAN LEGEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOBODY IS WORKING QUANTUM COMPUTING - IT'S JUST A MIRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

NASA AND SPACEX AREN'T CURRENTLY ENGINEERING ROCKETS TO TRAVEL TO MARS - 'TIS MERELY A TRICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AT LAST I TRULY SEE

HOW COULD I BE SO STUPID ALL THIS TIME? HOW COULD I ***POSSIBLY*** BELIEVE THAT TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS IS LITERALLY HAPPENING ALL THE TIME??????????

BUT NOW I AM AN ENLIGHTENED REDDIT-TIER TWAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>sci-fi future

>You mean the thing which we overcame and then developed way better technology, which is getting better and better every day?
Technology which is heavily dependent on finite non-renewable non-recyclable resources, all the best deposits of which have already been burnt up. If another "dark ages" were to happen, there would be no going back.

Well yes technology is still advancing what I think your snagged on is what the questions are to begin with.

>How advanced of a sci-fi future can we realistically expect?

>What's a realistic upper limit to what's actually probable?

Self landing rockets are indeed being worked on but what does that really advance us towards? The only thing that I've seen is reducing the price of launching rockets to begin with, with the whole reusable angle.

Self driving cars are indeed also being worked on but what does that go towards? Make it common and the only thing you did was give a decent amount of people a chauffeur built into the bloody thing, hardly some major societal shift.

Gene editing is again a good example but what will really come of that? The one big thing is curing or preventing some diseases. So that amounts to making people live slightly longer. This one is a little bigger than the other two but I'm trying to stick with more plausible aspects of it. Something we see nowadays to a degree.

Quantum computing is something I can't say I know about much but from what I gathered it amounts to a means of faster computing, which is always welcome. But not something that is going to change the face of humanity forever. It just means we get faster computers.

On the topic of sending rockets to Mars and going forward on the idea, people. Despite the scientific data we could gather. Things down on earth don't really change much. I haven't done much research into it. But I don't really think us landing on the moon really changed the face of society forever or humanity. It was just really cool.

All in all I stand with what I said earlier. I can't really say where we could go from this point. Sure advancements are still going and will still do so for a long while but I think for the most part things are gonna be staying the same. Maybe my great great great grandchildren will be able to prove me wrong.

OPTION 4:

We shove everyone into the matrix for a few years on EXTREME difficulty.
Thereby making humans that have experienced countless virtual lives and deaths en-masse and capable of both healing and dealing at a masterful level. Allowing us to pump out hundreds of skilled masterminds in various fields in half the time it would take to make on the outside.

>What can come of it.

CAT
*EXPLETIVE*
GIRLS

MER-FOLK

SENTIENT DRAGONS

Focusing on tiny details instead of looking at the bigger picture is a sign of brainlets trying to be smart.

>there were no advancements at all during the dark ages
Is this what brainlets actually believe?

Geneticistfag here, ignore because the chances are quite small that we'll be able to design structures that are incredibly complex genetically for a while.

That isn't to say gene editing isn't a game changer, because you're massively understating its uses. It's actually much more probable that instead of being used just for medicine, which is a much more nuanced application, that it's used for industry. It's already been the case that bacteria are modified to produce certain biochemicals that are otherwise difficult to produce/harvest, and in the future once certain advancements in our knowledge of gene regulation have been made, we'll be able to design, replicate, or even just transplant genetic scaffolds for complex material production.

Growing furs, meats, leather, ivory, bone, etc. in a lab environment on plants is really not too far-fetched- and once the genes are made, it's cheap too, much cheaper than the cost of operating a mechanical factory. Thus, it would represent a major revolution in how industry works in the first place, and it's plausibly right around the corner.

>Theres only about 3 options

Quit being a pessimistic treehugger fag.

Here's four relevant options to consider:

1. Is mankind/AI's future to envelop this universe (merging with other developed species, if they exist), or...

2. Simply expand to the point that it becomes possible to create our own universe to occupy indefinitely (leaving the remainder of this universe to undeveloped species, if they exist)?

3. If the former option is the goal, can the speed of light be transcended? This only affects the rate of suffusion, btw, not its eventuality.

And, of course...

4. Has this already happened, and we're occupying either outcome on a virtual basis?

As for OP's query...

>What's a realistic upper limit to what's actually probable?

There is none. A VR universe has no "realistic" rules to obey.

>MUH DARK AGES
Pseudo-historical trash pushed during the enlightenment. The only "dark age" technologically speaking was during the late empire. Technology expanded greatly during the middle ages due to pressures from war and the need to find local solutions to poor agricultural conditions because of decreased trade.
>You underestimate humanity's ability to believe stupid shit like religion over science
And the Romans weren't superstitious? Name ONE scientist persecuted during the middle ages because of their research (Bruno wasn't a scientist btw).

Muskbois need to be lobotamized, not that there is much up there anyway.

If we're talking Kardashev scales, I think type 1 and type 2 seem very achievable, but I don't think type 3 is likely to happen. Unless FTL is possible, I think distances are too large between star systems for a single species to conquer the whole galaxy. By the time most habitable systems in the galaxy are colonized, so much time would have passed that each colony would have likely diverged from the original human race to suit their new environment. At that point, so many biological and technological differences would exist between colonies that you wouldn't even know that they were closely related, let alone part of the same species; they're no longer part of the same civilization.
So in trying to create a type 3 civilization, all that really happened is that the number of type 2 civilizations increased.

Of course if there's a way we can travel orders of magnitude faster than c, then this won't be the case, and some Star Wars type civilizations are possible.

>so much time would have passed that each colony would have likely diverged from the original human race to suit their new environment.
>Star Wars type civilizations

Any such conquest will almost certainly be conducted by a biological/machine merger, meaning any colonies will be matrioshka brains networked across interplanetary and interstellar distances. Maintaining synchronization will be a normal part of the computer's subsystem, even if there's decades, centuries or millennia of "drift". Critical discoveries will be routinely transmitted across the entire system, like a colossal, slow-motion version of a nervous system with galactic proportions.

Physically, his will look nothing like the familiar concept of an interstellar civilization, such as Star Wars or Star Trek depicts, although such space opera settings could easily take place in the virtual constructs of the brains themselves...

I agree completely. I know I left out some other aspects of all the technologies, I just didn't want to type out an entire light novel. Though I feel for the time being gene editing will mostly star in medical application. I have heard about the concept of plants doing such things. Even with this rather colorful concept what really changes? The price for these goods go down? A small group of people that dislike where some of those things are gathered are placated? Sure the industry is revolutionized or at the very least changed. And the technology itself is quite amazing. It hardly changes the common folk or really any aspect of the day to day. Though I suppose that last bit's not really what is being asked here isn't it?

>What is the limit as X approaches N

Quantum computer gives us near-instant calculations... for 4 algorithms. It's a meme, it will be very useful for some things but it is NOT the "next paradigm" of computing.

probably so sci-fi future we end up like fallout 6

I don't know what that means

Very dense cities with good infrastructure.
Full utilization of fission power.
Space mining with robots.
Massive automation, 99% of humanity starves to death since they can't work and it doesn't effect the engine of industry.
The ultra rich move on to inhabit orbital stations and build interstellar drone ships.

How likely is it Veeky Forums?

Late ass reply, but I'd figure it's about on-par with the industrial revolution in terms of how ease-of production changes, which then cascades into changing the daily lifestyles of the general public. I mean, hell, if landscaping can be done by genetically altered plants that change their expression patterns based on light patterns they receive, that could change how we design living spaces, or construct things, or demolish things. This is an extreme and creative example, but certainly not impossible considering the cellular mechanisms for plant growth, and the kinds of amazing mechanical forces that can be generated through the biproduct of plant respiration.

If food becomes dirt cheap world-wide, with a lot of space that used to be farmland opened up, theoretically costs for living will plummet- if we assume it's not tampered with (it will be- but that poses many more opportunities for the world to be changed as a result of the technology), then the goal of the layman changes from trying to work for a living, to trying to work for the purpose of leaving something behind.

In a world where something is achieved like this, then the day-to-day struggle of the individual is less about what one must do to pay for food, shelter, and luxury, and more to do with what one must do to express, to put something forth that's new into the world. A system with that leeway is what gives meaning to the notion of a state, and gives rise to efforts of science and culture, and is the crux of the change generated in the past through revolutionary advances in technology.

The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the reason they shook the world was that they allotted (on average) less time investment per person in order to survive, and more time for other stuff. This very well may be the next giant leap in that regard- only time will tell for sure, and I have a huge bias. But I haven't heard many arguments as to why it's not possible or even likely.

People in this thread who think we're going to reach some sort of maximum to technological development - you're seriously fucking retarded.

Disasters might set us back, sure, and same for collapses of countries. And sure, maybe humans will wipe ourselves out. But I seriously doubt that.

So I think technology will ALWAYS advance, in ways that we can't imagine right now. Because that is what has always happened.

Niggers everywhere

Which sci-fi future? There are two different types. A dystopian cyberpunk future where corrupt corporations rule the world or a happy future where all diseases are cured,everybody uses clean energy, and war does not exist?

>the world is this black and white
You're still a teenager aren't you?

i think it's "realistic" and "probable" to say that the upper limit of the future sci-fi future will be more advanced than the current

There is no limit though. Unless time itself ends. But I don't think it will.

The future depicted in sci-fi tends to be black and white. It's either a dark future or a bright future

the happy one

That's because it's fucking FICTION.

Reality is not the same as FICTION.

Most works of fiction feature a depiction of reality where some elements are OVER-EMPHASISED in order to make some sort of POINT.

But obviously some works of science fiction strive for realism, and I would say they do a pretty good job of it. E.g. the movie Looper, or even Total Recall as well. Because even though they are of course FICTION, they show the future has having both positive aspects (technological advancement) and negative aspects (we still have to work jobs, of course) - so in that sense I think they're realistic.

This doesn't mean I'm saying that time travel, like seen in Looper, is realistic. I have no idea if it is. I know nothing about it. I'm just saying that technological advancement in general will obviously happen.

*future as having