Do you believe humanity will reach the year 3000?

[Shadowrun]

How old is chess, backgammon etc. Add another 1000 yrs big deal, i dont really think so.

The only way i could see answer no to the poker question is if you think humanity wont survive, or taking about a specific kind of poker.

[DougShrapnel]

No, if you extend the time line out far enough, all the small posibilities add up. At the rate we are going I'd say it's a near certainty in 1000 years. A few things could change that the biggest one being dogmatic religion.

I also believe that the universe should be teeming with life. Since most people believe that alien life has not visited us, adds to the chances since, the biggest reason why why have not contacted with other lifeforms is that they killed themselves off before they had the technology to ring us up. I'm gonna term that the Null precedence.

[FortunaMaximus]

Quick question(s):

Do you think the pace of growth theorized by the Kardashev scale is accurate? It seems to me that the 1% exponential growth rate of power usage/year may be sustainable initially, but that it would drop in increments very gradually over time.

However, I think that this would not be the case for a civilization that started much nearer the galactic center. Something about dispersion of energy and mass.

I'm not an academic by any means, but this pace seems faintly ridiculous, especially the speed of progression through Type II and Type III.

As for poker and entertainment pursuits. I'm relatively sure that a lot of similar things would develop. It may be that those games get more complex as our ability to perceive and process things does.

As to the situation where h. sapiens is no longer h. sapiens, I'd set the criteria at successfully retaining self-awareness without physicality.

And that, I think, is the singularity, at least for me.

[vanwely]

In the 2525, ain't gonna need no teeth, won't need no eyes.

You won't have nothing to chew, ain't nobody is gonna look at you.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No on the poker, yes on the humans. I count whatever technological miracles we become are us, as right now we're us, since we created it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would have to happen, or how far would we have to go in a scenario like this for you to consider our decendants "no longer human?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hrmmm. I think that has to be defined by the people in the future, and I'm sure it'll be up for argument. For me, I really don't know.

Like, has there been counter evidence to [censored] sapiens basically breeding out neanderthals (not really just replacing them)? If they're "binary compatible" then I'd say that neanderthals would count as "us" too. I think many would disagree.

Then again, the more I think along these lines, I can't come up with a good reason why I'm not the same as a bird. I need more time to process it.

Good point.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No on the poker, yes on the humans. I count whatever technological miracles we become are us, as right now we're us, since we created it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would have to happen, or how far would we have to go in a scenario like this for you to consider our decendants "no longer human?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hrmmm. I think that has to be defined by the people in the future, and I'm sure it'll be up for argument. For me, I really don't know.

Like, has there been counter evidence to [censored] sapiens basically breeding out neanderthals (not really just replacing them)? If they're "binary compatible" then I'd say that neanderthals would count as "us" too. I think many would disagree.

Then again, the more I think along these lines, I can't come up with a good reason why I'm not the same as a bird. I need more time to process it.

Good point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't the same as a bird because at some point your ancestors passed the "point of no return" with the ancestors of birds. This point was arbitrary, different for each branching, and fairly random, but it has to occur for speciation to occur. If we've passed that point with neanderthals (and their being dead or extinct makes no difference whatsoever) than they are a different species. Same would go for 'future humans' versus contemporary humans. We might not ever be able to determine whether we've crossed the point of no return, but it either did or didn't happen.

All of this is assuming you take a snapshot of "current humans" at some specific point in time. For that population, there will be some future point at which we cross the "point of no return." This time will be different for every snapshot. And even for a given snapshot, there will be a window, rather than a point, since all humans are different.

[Lestat]

I have to think humanity is a huge dog to make it to 3000.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">the biggest reason why why have not contacted with other lifeforms is that they killed themselves off before they had the technology to ring us up. </font>

I don't think that's correct. The biggest reasons are scarcity, vast distances, and the incredibly short time we've had technology.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I think there is a very good chance that humankind will survive to the next millennium and almost as good a chance that we will be more technologically advanced by then. </font>

"Almost" as good a chance we will be more technologically advanced by then?

Sorry Cored, but I have to laugh. Our technology is growing exponentially every year. That is to say, we've made more advances in the last 10 years, than we have in the last 100 (rough quote, it's probably more spectacular than that).

There's no doubt we would eons more technologically advanced than we are now. The problem unfortunately, is we'll never find out. Our technology exceeds are capacity for common sense. We will kill ourselves off well before then.

[knowledgeORbust]

[ QUOTE ]
We will kill ourselves off well before then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like... how?