Customer Discussions > Science forum

What will the Earth and human society be like in 200 years?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 126 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 9, 2012 10:45:54 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 10:49:16 PM PST
What theories out there currently? I know there have been ideas for more than a hundred years, but they have been hit and miss, usually getting the details way wrong.

Will there be overpopulation with the majority of people living in poverty more like the 1800s with the depletion of water, energy, and mineral resources? Religion dominating? Or computers continue to effect daily lives more and more, living like modern people?
Will the concept of races become a novelty, people pretending to be races while every generation gets more mixed?
Will there be an upper class of humans living genetically altered with microscopic internal machines keeping them healthy and youthful looking? Similar to ideas in Brave New World and The Time Machine.
Will 80%+ species of everything go extinct and what is left altered by human activity? Will the whole Earth become like a typical American community, full of the same trees everywhere and the same few animals that adapt, the same bugs, mowed hybrid grasses and weeds the same everywhere (depending on different climates)? Or will there still be some diversity? Will a tropical environment that had 500 species in a lake be reduced to 20 or so? Even if the planet is "saved", however one would define "saved", bio-diversity is reduced for millions of years? Almost all populations of larger animals will be unnatural managed populations?

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 10:54:23 PM PST
®_0 wrote:
{
What theories out there currently?
Will there be overpopulation
Will the concept of races
Will there be an upper class
Will 80%+ species of everything
Will the whole Earth become like
will there still be some diversity?
Will a tropical environment that
will be unnatural managed populations?
}
=====================
Why are you asking, anyway?
Is' t because asking is free?

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 8:10:50 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:45:09 AM PST
Charlie T. says:
Hot desert

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 11:55:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 11:55:41 AM PST
No one knows.

Think how different it was 200 years ago, and how little of what it's like now would have been foreseeable then.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 11:57:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2012 7:16:48 PM PST
The earth will be flat, just like it is now. And human populations will have exactly the same allele frequencies that they have now, because evolution can't happen. ;o) Just kidding!

Posted on Nov 23, 2012 5:58:34 PM PST
Jeff Marzano will still be crazy.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 8:52:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 10:18:44 PM PST
DarthRad says:
We are well on our way to a complete understanding of the human genome. It should be possible to engineer ever more perfect and improved human beings within 200 years. The predictions of the movie Gattaca should come true.

That's the simplest prediction I can think of. Scientific progress is easier to extrapolate in a straight line fashion when the advances are coming rapidly and the goal is in sight.

Global warming is going to keep progressing, unless we develop unlimited fusion power and stop all carbon fuel usage. Will it melt the frozen methane ice and cause a runaway greenhouse effect? Harder to predict. Or will it just devastate the coastal areas of Earth and shift the habitable climate zones around? (Canada will be a nicer place to live).

Nuclear war in some form seems inevitable. There are just too many countries that will be tempted to develop nuclear weapons and use them. And it really is not that hard to build an atomic bomb. However, I don't think nuclear war will lead to a global holocaust. The radiation contaminations of Chernobyl, Bikini Island, etc. have shown that life can survive in radioactive areas.

Will the Yellowstone super volcano erupt? Hard to predict. It is over due and should erupt sometime in the next 50,000 years. This will devastate much of the northwest, west, and midwest of the United States. Our country may have to downsize quite a bit.

Will mankind have discovered new power sources and figured out how to do space travel? There is nothing on the immediate horizon, and a gigantic series of new scientific discoveries would be needed for efficient space travel to occur. Just think how many thousands of years it took mankind to go from traveling along coasts by canoes to sailing in sailships and then steamships, and then finally flying by airplane. The ancients dreamed of flying like birds, we can do that now, using technology that they could not have possibly imagined. We are at that stage now with space travel.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 6:15:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 6:16:22 AM PST
Agree that we'll fully understand the human genome in the not too distant future. However concluding from that that we'll be able to create "perfect" humans is not possible. One has to define "perfect", and there is no single definition. It's not even clear that one can come up with a definition of "perfect" as applied to a human being. Moreover humans are more than the sum of their genes.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 6:34:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 10:32:18 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
arpard fazakas says:

[Moreover humans are more than the sum of their genes.]

Yes but not from a physical standpoint. Cloning and genetically engineering people is strictly a biological process.

They should make like a million Marylin Monroe's and Raquel Welch's. I just hope Marylin wasn't cremated.

Think of it. Pick what you want your son or daughter to look like from a catalog and then just clone them from the genes.

I heard on TV awhile ago that people today already have the ability to create an Incredible Hulk. They could engineer people to be giants with superhuman strength.

There are probably many things that could be done or at least attempted today. The question is should those things be attempted.

Paleontologist Jack Horner was the scientific adviser for the movie Jurassic Park 3. Horner told Spielberg to use a Spinosaurus instead of a T Rex in the movie.

Horner and others think that within the next few decades people will have the ability to create a dinosaur-like creature. All the DNA is present in every chicken egg. It's a matter of activating some genes like turn on the teeth gene and turn off the beak gene.

When a chicken embryo first starts developing it has a crocodilian tail. But as the embryo grows the tail disappears.

Genetics and DNA is like a new frontier in science today. How fascinating that everyone's DNA is unique except for biological twins. Just that alone is transforming law enforcement techniques. Defense attorneys can't really create any sort of reasonable doubt in the minds of juries when DNA evidence exists.

There was an incident a few years back where a strange looking animal washed up on the shore near Montauk on Long Island in New York. People dubbed this creature the Montauk Monster. It appeared to be some sort of conglomeration of different animals all merged together. Pictures were taken of this animal but the carcass mysteriously disappeared.

Apparently there's a government animal research lab near Montauk, a place which is already infamous in conspiracy circles. Perhaps that animal research lab flushed one of their experiments down the wrong drain and it washed up on shore.

Jeff Marzano

The Fly (1958)/Return of the Fly (1959)

The Montauk Project: Experiment in Time

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 6:43:31 AM PST
Your post implies that for you "perfect" in a human female is someone with certain features, such as symmetric face, wide-set eyes, large breasts, narrow waist, wide hips, tapering legs, etc.

One can come up with many other definitions of "perfect". and it's far from clear than any of them are really "perfect".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 10:30:07 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
arpard fazakas says:

[One can come up with many other definitions of "perfect".]

Perhaps but people spend an awful lot of money in our shallow society to try to artificially obtain those physical traits you listed.

Sadly however they are never successful.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 10:44:06 AM PST
Well, sometimes they are. Case in point: Pamela Anderson.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 10:54:39 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Well I guess we'll see how peoples' artificial breast implants, botox treatments, face lifts, and whatever other ways they butcher their bodies hold up as they get older.

I recall seeing Pamela Anderson in a movie when she was first starting out. Then she was on that TV with all the beautiful girls on the beach.

Somewhere along the way however Tommy Lee wanted to make contact with her and he was successful. Whether they are still in any sort of relationship I don't know.

I thought I heard at one point she was accusing Tommy Lee of causing her to contract hepatitis from a tattoo artist that they had shared or something along those lines.

Then there was that video tape.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 10:56:49 AM PST
Various forms of anti-aging therapies are going to be a huge growth industry in this century. It's only a matter of time before medications are available to slow down aging, and stem cell therapies to rejuvenate aging stem-cell compartments such as in the skin, brain, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:06:12 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny

No need to go to chickens for a wayback machine, though they are dinosaurs of course. However, all human embryos have a tail appear then disappear, along with gill slits.

Going down that rabbit hole wouldn't get you anything from the protostome branch of animal evolution (molluscs, arthropods etc.) but it might bring out our inner neotonous tunicate. Wouldn't that be something?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:09:35 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: Pamela Anderson as perfect

Seriously? She looks like a botched science experiment to me. An attempt to retrofit someone to being what Scarlett Johansson is without recourse to any modification.

Though if you wanted to dig deeper I'd be more inclined to propose Jacquilene Marie Evancho.

Posted on Nov 29, 2012 11:10:11 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: "What will the Earth and human society be like in 200 years?"

Haiti, writ large.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:11:29 AM PST
Actually I prefer Sharon Stone.

Bridgette Bardot was great...once.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:12:00 AM PST
What a thought!

Posted on Nov 29, 2012 11:20:40 AM PST
W.T. says:
The most fun part of the upcoming revolution in genetic manipulation will be the inevitable, but thus far unknown, unintended consequences to it all. It's going to be full of irony worthy of O. Henry.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:25:39 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
It could be like the three-spined stickleback, an estuarine fish from the UK. Females get a red flush on their belly during mating seasons. Attracts the males. Researchers tried carving exactly models of the females only with a bigger belly flush. The models outdid the actual females. Then they tried just a chunk of balsa wood with a humongous belly flush. That worked even better.

Thus we could get women who make Scarlett Johansson look like Keira Knightly.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:28:27 AM PST
We need women who make Nicki Minaj look like Janet Reno.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:28:37 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: Sharon Stone

Along those lines I'd propose Charlize Theron instead.

The most absurd thing about The Huntsman was that we were supposed to think Kristen Stewart way more beautiful than Charlize Theron. Talk about requiring a suspension of disbelief...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 11:30:54 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: women who make Nicki Minaj look like Janet Reno

Go back a few millenia and your dream come true is there: the Willendorf Venus.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  126
Initial post:  Nov 9, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions